The Dynamics of Racial Residential Segregation
Author(s): Camille Zubrinsky Charles
Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 29 (2003), pp. 167-207
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036965
Accessed: 17/02/2009 09:36
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
Annu.Rev.Sociol.2003.29:167-207
doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100002
© 2003by AnnualReviews.All rightsreserved
Copyright
onlineas a Reviewin AdvanceonJune4, 2003
Firstpublished
THE DYNAMICS OF RACIAL RESIDENTIAL
SEGREGATION
CamilleZubrinskyCharles
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
of Sociology,University
Department
of Pennsylvania,
19104-6299;email:ccharles@pop.upenn.edu
Key Words race,racerelations,urban/racial
inequality,stratification
U Abstract The publicationof AmericanApartheid(Massey& Denton1993)was
influentialin shiftingpublic discourseback towardracialresidentialsegregationas
fundamentalto persistingracialinequality.At the end of the twentiethcentury,the
majorityof blacksremainedseverelysegregatedfromwhites in majormetropolitan
areas.Due to the persistenceof high-volumeimmigration,HispanicandAsiansegregationfromwhites has increased,althoughit is still best characterizedas moderate.
This reviewexaminestrendsin the residentialsegregationof blacks,Hispanics,and
the causesof persistingsegregaAsiansandrecentresearchfocusedon understanding
tion. This discussionis organizedaroundtwo broadtheoreticalperspectives-spatial
assimilationandplace stratification.
Afterdetailingthe consequencesof segregation
andgoals for futureresearch.
for affectedgroups,I identifygapsin ourunderstanding
INTRODUCTION
Sociologists andpolicymakershave long viewed racialresidentialsegregationas a
key aspectof racialinequality,implicatedin both intergrouprelationsandin larger
processesof individualandgroupsocial mobility.At the dawnof the twentiethcentury,Du Bois (1903) recognizedthe importanceof neighborhoods-the "physical
proximityof home and dwelling-places,the way in which neighborhoodsgroup
themselves, and [their] contiguity"-as primarylocations for social interaction,
lamentingthat the "colorline" separatingblack and white neighborhoodscaused
each to see the worst in the other (1990, pp. 120-21). Indeed, studentsof racial
inequality,from Myrdal (1944) to Taeuber& Taeuber(1965), believed that segregationwas a major barrierto equality,assertingthat segregation"inhibitsthe
developmentof informal,neighborlyrelations,""ensuresthe segregationof a variety of public and privatefacilities"(Taeuber& Taeuber1965, p. 1), and permits
prejudice"tobe freely vented on Negroes withouthurtingwhites"(Myrdal1944,
p. 618). Moreover,residentialsegregation"underminesthe social and economic
well-being"irrespectiveof personalcharacteristics(Massey& Denton 1993, pp. 23). Whethervoluntaryor involuntary,living in racially segregatedneighborhoods
has seriousimplicationsfor the presentand futuremobility opportunitiesof those
036030572/03/0811-0167$14.00
167
168
CHARLES
who are excluded from desirable areas. Where we live affects our proximity to
good job opportunities,educationalquality,and safety fromcrime (both as victim
and as perpetrator),as well as the qualityof our social networks(Jargowsky1996,
Wilson 1987).
By the late 1960s, unrestin urbanghettos across the countrybroughtresidential segregation-and its implicationin racialinequality-to the public's attention,
leadingto the now famousconclusionof the KernerCommissionthatAmericawas
"movingtowardtwo societies, one black, one white-separate andunequal"(U.S.
National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders 1988) and the passage of the
Fair Housing Act in 1968. In additionto ending legal housing marketdiscrimination, passage of the Fair Housing Act markedthe end of public discussion of
legislationwas the
residentialsegregation,as manybelievedthatantidiscrimination
beginningof the end of residentialsegregation.Withlegal barriersto educational,
occupational,and residentialopportunitiesremoved,blacks could finally achieve
full-fledgedintegration,and social scientists,politicians,andthe generalpublicignoredthis dimensionof the color line for the next two decades(Massey & Denton
1993, Meyer 2000). By the late 1970s, conditions in the nation's urbanareaswhere the majorityof blacks were still concentrated-had declined precipitously.
Social scientists scrambledto explainthe emergenceof a disproportionatelyblack
urbanunderclass,paying little or no attentionto persistingresidentialsegregation
by race.
In The TrulyDisadvantaged(1987), Wilson outlinedthe most widely accepted
theory of urban poverty: Geographicallyconcentratedpoverty and the subsequent developmentof a ghetto underclassresultedfrom structuralchanges in the
economy combined with the exodus of middle- and working-class black families from many inner-city ghetto neighborhoods.The shift from a goods- to a
service-producingeconomy saw huge declines in the availabilityof low-skilled
manufacturingjobs thatpaid enough to supporta family; owing to past discrimination, blacks were disproportionatelyconcentratedin these jobs and therefore
sufferedmassive unemployment.Having benefitedmore substantiallyfrom civil
rights gains thatincludedaffirmativeaction policies as well as antidiscrimination
legislation, Wilson argued,middle- and working-classblacks were able to take
advantageof residentialopportunitiesoutside of the ghetto. The impact of these
events was an "exponentialincrease"in the now well-known social dislocations
associatedwith suddenand/orlong-termincreasesin joblessness-under- andunemployment,welfare dependence,out-of-wedlockbirths,and a blatantdisregard
for the law. The emigrationof nonpoorblacks, Wilson argued,removed an important"social buffer,"leaving poor blacks in socially isolated communitiesthat
lacked materialresources, access to jobs andjob networks,exposure to conventional role models, and therefore"generate[d]behavior not conducive to good
work histories"(Wilson 1987, pp. 56-60).1
seeWilson(1987)andMassey
'Foranoverviewof otherpopulartheoriesof theunderclass,
& Denton(1993);for detaileddiscussionsof the characteristics
poverty
of concentrated
see Wilson(1987),Massey& Denton(1993),andJargowsky
neighborhoods,
(1996).
DYNAMICSOF RESIDENTIALSEGREGATION
169
Massey & Denton (1993) show, however,thatwithoutresidentialsegregation,
these "structuralchanges would not have producedthe disastroussocial and economic outcomesobservedin innercities... Althoughrates of black povertywere
drivenup by the economic dislocationsWilson identifies, it was segregationthat
confined the increased deprivationto a small numberof densely settled, tightly
packed, and geographicallyisolated areas."Retooling existing theories of urban
poverty,they argue,resolves unansweredquestionsregardingthe disproportionate
representationof blacksandPuertoRicansin the ranksof the underclass,as well as
the concentrationof underclasscommunitiesin older,largercities of the Northeast
and Midwest. In the largesturbanareas,blacks and PuertoRicans were the only
groupsto experienceextremeresidentialsegregationand steep rises in povertyat
the same time, the latter stemming from the fact that areas of black concentration were also hit especially hardby the economic reversalsof the 1970s (Massey
& Denton 1993, pp. 146-47).2 Emphasizingthe interactionof segregationand
rising povertyalso furthersour understandingof the inability of nonpoorblacks
to escape segregationand its consequences, despite increasingclass segregation
withinblackcommunities(Jargowsky1996;Massey & Denton 1993, pp. 146-47).
Focusing on a black middle-classexodus, they argue,detractsattentionfrom the
devastatingconsequencesof residentialsegregationfor all blacks, irrespectiveof
socioeconomic status.
The publicationof AmericanApartheid(Massey & Denton 1993) was singularly influentialin shifting public discourse "back to issues of race and racial
segregation"as "fundamentalto... the statusof black Americansand the origins
of the urbanunderclass."The book arguedpersuasivelythat "themissing link"in
each of the underclasstheoriesprevalentat the time was "theirsystematicfailureto
considerthe importantrole thatsegregationhas playedin mediating,exacerbating,
and ultimatelyamplifyingthe harmfulsocial and economic processes they treat"
(Massey & Denton 1993, p. 7). As a result, social scientists have rediscovered
racialresidentialsegregationas a constituentfactorin persistentracialinequality
in the United States. Recent researchaddressesseveralkey issues, including the
following: (a) trendsin the residentialsegregationof racial/ethnicgroups,(b) factorsthatinfluencethe spatialdistributionof groups,and(c) the social andeconomic
consequencesof segregation.
This review addresseseach of these issues. I begin with a summaryof trends
in the residentialsegregationof blacks, Hispanics, and Asians from whites since
1980. Despite declines in black-whitesegregation,blacks remainseverely segregated in the majorityof U.S. cities. As a result of massive immigration,Hispanic
and Asian segregationfrom whites is on the rise; but except for a small number
of cases among Hispanics, both groups still remain only moderatelysegregated
from whites. Following the discussion of trends in segregation,I review recent
literaturededicatedto understandingthe causes of residentialsegregation.Two
2Massey&Denton(1993)andothers(see,forexample,Loganet al. 1996)arguethatgroups
with obviousAfricanphenotypeare similarlydisadvantaged,
explainingthe divergence
betweenblackandwhiteHispanics.
170
CHARLES
broad theoreticalperspectives shape this discussion and are indicative of ongoing sociological-indeed, societal-debates regardingthe relative importanceof
race and class in determiningsocial outcomes. The spatial assimilation model
posits that objectivedifferencesin socioeconomic statusand acculturationacross
racial/ethnicgroupsareprimarilyresponsiblefor residentialsegregation,squarely
addressingthe issue of social mobility in its suggestionthat increasededucation,
occupationalprestige,andincome will lead to greaterracialresidentialintegration.
This explanationadequatelydescribesthe residentialmobility of both phenotypically white Hispanicsand of Asians. Alternatively,the place stratificationmodel
emphasizes the persistence of prejudiceand discrimination-key aspects of intergrouprelations-that act to constrainthe residentialmobility options of disadvantagedgroups, including supraindividual,institutional-levelforces.3 Available
evidence suggests that this model bettercharacterizesthe inability of those who
arephenotypicallyblack (bothAfricanAmericansandblack Hispanics)to escape
segregation.At first glance, these perspectives may appearoppositional. Upon
closer inspection, however, these seemingly oppositional explanationscomplement one another.Race still matters;however,its relativeimportance-and that
of socioeconomic status-depends on group membership.Finally, I end with a
discussion of the consequences of residentialsegregation,followed by a discussion of the currentstateof knowledgeregardingthe dynamicsof racialresidential
segregation,including suggestions and/orefforts to alleviate segregationand its
consequences.
TRENDS IN RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION, 1980-2000
Blacks in 16 metropolitanareas were hypersegregatedfrom whites in 1980, exhibiting extremeisolation on at least four of five standardmeasuresof residential
distribution(Massey & Denton 1989).4By 1990, thatnumberhad nearlydoubled:
in the emergenceandmaintenance
3Theroleof the federalgovernment
of raciallysegreto discriminatory
is
fromFHAmortgage
zoningpractices,
gatedneighborhoods,
guarantees
well documented
(seemostrecentlyMeyer2000).Morethan30 yearssincethesediscriminatorypracticeswerebanned,however,theireffectsareevidencedby massiveblack-white
disparities
in accumulated
wealth(Oliver& Shapiro1995).
4Studiesof residentialsegregationgenerallyrely on one or moreof five measures,each
of whichcapturesa differentdimensionof the spatialdistribution
of groups.Evennessmeasuredas the indexof dissimilarity-describes
the degreeto whicha groupis evenly
distributed
acrossneighborhoods
or tracts.A scoreover60 is interpreted
as extremesegregationbetweentwo groups,indicatingthe percentageof eithergroupthatwouldhave
to moveto anothertractto achievewithin-tract
thatmirrorthat
populationdistributions
of the metroarea.Isolation-measuredas (P*,)-is interpreted
as thepercentthatis the
ortract;scoresof 70 andoverare
sameracein theaveragegroupmember'sneighborhood
extreme(indicating
thattheaveragepersonlivesin anareathatis 70%thesame
considered
as theaverageprobability
of
race).Theinverseof isolationis Exposure(P*,), interpreted
DYNAMICSOF RESIDENTIALSEGREGATION
171
In 29 U.S. metropolitanareas-containing 40% of the total black populationblacks experienced"extreme,multidimensional,andcumulativeresidentialsegregation"(Denton1994, p. 49). Blacks areuniquein this experience,which contrasts
sharply with the limited and temporary segregation experienced by other groups
(Denton 1994, Massey & Denton 1993). Hispanics and Asians are only moderately segregated from whites, although their levels of segregation and isolation
are increasing as a result of continuous, high-volume immigration since 1970.5
Preliminary data from the 2000 Census (Logan 2001a) documents nationwide increases in the relative size of the Hispanic and Asian populations since 1980 and
declines in the relative size of the white population; the relative size of the black
population changed little (an average of 1.5%).6 With no end to immigration in
sight, non-Hispanic whites are projected to become a numerical minority in the
United States some time during this century (Edmonston & Passel 1992, Massey
1995), and the trend is well underway: 8 of the 50 largest metro areas are already
majority-minority(whites are less than half the total population)and two others
will be majority-minority by the 2010 Census.7
Thesecompositionalshiftsinfluenceresidentialsegregationin meaningfulways.
Isolation is generally low for small groups but is expected to rise with increasing
contact with a person-of-another-racecomparisongroup (usually whites). These are the
most commonlyreportedmeasures.Threeothermeasures-concentration, clustering,and
centralization-address a group's degree of density,proximityto the centralbusiness district, and the contiguity of their neighborhoods,respectively.A group is hypersegregated
if it scores over 60 on at least four of the five measures(Denton 1994; Massey & Denton
1989, 1993).
5Accordingto official estimates, nearly 85% of the 15.5 million immigrantsto the United
States between 1971 and 1993 are of Latin American or Asian origin (roughly 50% and
35%, respectively);includingestimatesof undocumentedor illegal immigrantspushes the
total up by at least another3 million, the majorityof which are largely Mexican (Massey
1995).
6Data are for the 50 largest metropolitan areas. Due to space limitations, these
data are not presented here but are available from the Lewis Mumford Center at
The relative share of the Hispanic and Asian populawww.albany.edu/mumford/census.
tions increasedan averageof 6.8% and 3.8%, respectively.Eleven regions-Los Angeles,
Riverside-SanBemardino,OrangeCounty,and San Diego in California;HoustonandDallas in Texas;Phoenix-Mesain Arizona;Miami, Orlando,and Fort Lauderdalein Florida;
and Bergen-Passaicin New Jersey-saw theirHispanicpopulationsincreasebetween 10%
and 22%. Increases for Asians topped 10% in four areas in California(OrangeCounty,
Oakland,San Francisco, and San Jose), and five other areas increased between 6% and
10% (Los Angeles-Long Beach and Sacramento,Seattle-Bellvue-Everettin Washington,
New YorkCity, and Bergen-Passaic).On average,the relativesize of the white population
declined by 12.4%. For blacks, the patternis more varied;there is little or no growth in
many areasand others show slight declines.
7Regionsthatare currentlymajority-minorityare:Los Angeles, Riverside-SanBemardino,
Oakland,and San Jose; Houstonand San Antonio; Miami; and New YorkCity. Two other
regions-Orange County and San Francisco-are currentlyjust over 51% white.
172
CHARLES
group size even if the group's level of segregationremainsconstant. Moreover,
the largerthe relative size of an out-group'spopulation,the greaterexposure to
that group is likely to be. Both exposure and isolation are influenced by group
settlementpatterns.Specifically, chain migrationpatternscommon among both
HispanicandAsianimmigrantsconcentraterapidlygrowinggroupsin a smallnumber of metropolitanareas-and within a small numberof neighborhoodswithin
an area-increasing theirisolation and decreasingexposureto out-groups(Logan
2001a, Massey & Denton 1987).
Table 1 reportsblack, Hispanic, and Asian segregationfrom whites (dissimilarity),isolation, andexposureto whites for the 50 largestmetropolitanregions in
2000 (and parenthetically,the change between 1980 and 2000).8 Both Hispanics
and Asians show increasingsegregationand isolation, along with declining exposure to whites. These patternsare consistent with their rapidpopulationgrowth,
settlementpatterns,and declining white populationshare.Over the same period,
blacks show declinesin bothsegregationandisolation;trendsin exposureto whites
are mixed, but overall reflect a slight increase.These patternsare consistent with
the shifts in populationcomposition outlined above and their anticipatedeffects
on spatial distribution.These changes also contributedto declining black isolation: In many instances,Hispanicsettlementpatternsconcentratethem in areasof
traditionalblack settlement,increasingblack-Hispaniccontact(Alba et al. 1995).9
Nearlyhalf of themetroregionsexperienceddeclinesin black-whitesegregation
of at least 10 percentagepointsoverthe 20-yearperiod.10Still, the degreeof blackwhite segregationremainsextreme(over60) in 28 regions.More thanhalf of these
areEasternandMidwesternregions,whereblack-whitesegregationhas been most
resistantto change(Farley& Frey 1994, Massey & Denton 1993), andmanyof the
most segregatedregions saw little or no change in black-whitesegregationover
the two decades.At the same time, segregationdeclinedenoughin some mid-sized
regions with sizableblackpopulationsto be characterizedas moderate(under50).
Areas with the largestdeclines (15% or more) tend to be multiethnic(an aboveaverage presence of at least one other nonwhite group) and/or have relatively
small black populations(between 5% and 10%);these metro areas are located in
data,themostcommonlyusedlevelof Censusgeography.
8Thesedatausetract-level
Census
tractstypicallyhavebetween2500and8000residentsandareclosestin size to whatmost
Someresearchers
considera neighborhood.
(e.g.,Farley& Frey1994)reportsegregation
measuresbasedon smaller,block-group
data.Thisunitof geography
usuallycontainsonly
As a result,calculating
a few hundredresidentsandis, on average,morehomogeneous.
segregation
levelyieldshigherresults(Ellen2000,p. 14).
indicesattheblock-group
groupexposurearenotshownhere,butareavailablefromthe
9Dataforminority-minority
LewisMumfordCenter(www.albany.edu/mumford/census).
as follows:changesof 10 or morepoints
1oChanges
in segregation
areusuallyinterpreted
in a decaderepresentsignificantchange;changebetween5 and 10 pointsovera decade
representmoderatechange;changesof less than5 pointsin a decadeareinterpreted
as
nearlyhalfof theareas
littleorno change(Logan2001a,b,c).Basedon thesebenchmarks,
experienced
moderate
declinesin segregation.
OFRESIDENTIAL
DYNAMICS
SEGREGATION 173
A)
(-22)
(-13)
(-9)(-25)
(-27)
(-8)(-22)
(-20)
(-13)(-17) (-12)
(-8)(-25)
(-8)(-7)(-7)(-5)(-8)
(-17)
(-17)
(-29)
(-12)
(-12)
(-28)
(-19)(-19) (-26)
(-13)
(-13)
Exposure
(80-00 31 46 46 45 65 41 78 38 37 48 48
63 76 68 80 80 77 82 79
45 60 70 70 61 49 62 76 63 62
(Continued)
A)
(+7)(+13) (+9)(+9)(+3)(+3)(+6)(+2)(+6)(+4)(+7)(+5)
(+14)
(+8)(+19)
(+7)(+17)
(+11)
(+27)
(+6)(+10)
9
15 11 4 5 8 4 9 6 9 8
(80-00 29 11 26 22 19 29
Isolation
40 38 20 24
Asians
(+6)(+6)(+10)
(+3)(+3)(+2)(+3)(+2)
15 8 12 5 5 4 4 3
A)
(+1)(+7)(+12)
(+1)(-5)(+4)(+3)(-2)(+9)(+1)(+3)
(80-00 48 38 40 47 35 42 32 49 42 49 42
Dissimilarity
(+6)(+6)(+1)(+4)(+5)(+2)(+9)(+5)(+6)(+5)
49 45 28 30 42 32 30 30 41 36
(-3)(+5)(+13)
(+1)(+3)(+1)(+2)(0)
44 46 43 43 38 35 42 39
1980-2000
A)
(80-00
regions,Exposure
(-23)
(-13)
(-13)
(-17)
(-7) (-15) (-13)
(-17)
(-23)
(-28)
(-16)
(-25)
(-17)
(-23)
(-17)(-20) (-19)
(-15)
(-13)
(-20)
(-4)(-9)(-13)
(-20)
(-17)
(-2)(-30)
(+1)(-14)
17 36 31 38 70 36 74 36 30 52 42
31 37 44 50 46 27 49 70 45 44
38 62 67 77 65 64 81 70
A)
(80-00
Isolation
metropolitan
Hispanics
largest
50
(+17)
(+6)(+12)
(+12)
(+12)
(+21)
(+12)
(+9)(+11)
(+4)(+12) (+10)
(+12)
(+21)
(+16)
(+9)(+7)(+13) (+13)
(-1)(+23)
(+12)
(+6)(+2)(+4)(+7)(+1)(+6)
(+13)
8
4 17 17 2 7
63 50 54 44
30 15 34 41 21 36
49 45 46 38 37 66 34 22 40 42
48 19 10
A)
(+5)(+5)(0) (+1)(0) (-7)(+20)
(+8)(0) (+4)
56 54 53 50 48 51 43 43 47 49
(-2)(+4)(+10)
(0) (0) (+5)(-1)(+15)
62 46 47 29 58 46 30 44
(-1)(+9)(+4)(+4)(+10)
(+1)(+7)(-1)(+5)(+4)
22 33 51 47 40 34 48 74 40 43
(+5)(-2)(-4)(+8)(+5)(+9)(+4)(+7)
16 17 58 32 25 38 39 41
(-16)
(-26)
(-5)(-2)(-12)
(-15)
(-21)
(-18)
(-3)(-4) (-12) (-19)
(-26)
(-14)
(-19)
(-28)
(-31)
(-15)
(-6)(-22)(-20)
3
9 24 35
Blacks
(80-00 34 15 3 15 14 35 16 23 4 18 18
Isolation
21 24
20 19
47 42
(-10)
(0) (-6)(-9)(-7)(-14)
(-6)(-12)
73 79 23 65 71 53 58 53
the
in
(+11)
(+14)
(+8)(+6)(+5)(+9)
(+6)(+4)(+13)
(+9)(+11)
(80-00 63 43 56 51 31 47 35 54 52 40 47
Dissimilarity
A)
whites
from
(-17)
(-13)(-7)
(0) (-17)
(-6)(+4)(-2)(+7)(-3)(-18)
(80-00 16 38 48 38 59 26 67 31 38 44 41
Exposure
A)
segregation
Asian
and
A)
(-21)
(-14)
(-9)(-9)(-10)
(-18)
(-11)
(-7)(-8)(-3) (-11) (-9)(-19)
(-18)
(-7)(-18)
(-20)
(-13)(-15) (-8)(-3)(-10)
(-12)
(-20)
(-9)(-8)(-9)(-4)(-9)
(80-00 68 46 37 54 50 63 48 61 41 56 52
Dissimilarity
81 85 58 74 77 69 75 71
68 59 44 62 60 50 43 37 52 53
Hispanic,
Beach
areas
average
1
area
TABLE
average
Bernardino
Black,
County
areas
Angeles/Long
Diego
Francisco
Jose
area
Paul
Marcos
area
City/Ogdenareas
City
Worth/Arlington
Lake
Antonio
Vegas
Louis
Orange
SanSeattle/Bellevue/Everett
Portland/Vancouver
SanSanSacramentoHouston
Denver
SanLasSaltAustin/SanChicago
St.Cleveland/Lorain/Elyria
LosRiverside/San
Oakland
Dallas
Phoenix/Mesa
Detroit
Kansas
Fort
Minneapolis/St.
Cincinnati
Indianapolis
MetroWestern
Southwestern
Southwestern
Western
Midwestern
174
CHARLES
A)
(-29)
(-30)
(-14)
(-25)(-12) (-18)
(-27)
(-10)
(-12)
(-26)
(-19)
(-7)(-19)
(-12)
(-14)(-18)
(-12)
(-7)(-11)
(-20)
(-20)(-13)(-16)
(-10)
(-7)(-14)
(80-0078 65 75
57 59 71 75 29 62 59 63 65 51 67 75 70 62
66 71 75 85 69 65 69 68 62
Exposure
40(-15)
A)
(+5)(+4)(+4)
(80-007 5 7
Isolation
Asians
(+9)(+7)(+5)(+3)(+2)(+4)(+3)(+2)(+3)(0) (+3)(+3)(+5)(+4)
14 8 7 4 3 5 4 6 4 11 4 4 7 6
(+11)
(+7)(+1)(+6)(+4)(+7)(+13)
(+5)(+7)(+6)
8 5 9 16 6 12 11
27 10 13
(+7)(+9)(+1)(0) (+3)(+4)(+1)(-4)(-4)(-3)(+3)(-1) (+1)
39 45 39 34 31 36 28 34 43 48 46 42 41(0)39
(+3)(+3)
(+1)(+3)(-3)(+5)(+3)(+4)(+2)(+10)
51 44 45 36 49 35 36 43 42 40
A)
(-3)(+10)
(+3)
(80-0042 41 41
Dissimilarity
A)
(-11)
(-12)
(-20)(-12) (-25)
(-27)
(-7)(-9)(-16)
(-30)
(-29)
(-18)
(-10)
(-16)
(-19)(-18) (-10)
(-7)(-13)
(-22)
(-3)(-11)
(-13)
(-31)(-14)(-16)
(-12)
(80-0071 51 65
21 43 54 56 84 36 38 48 48 51
Exposure
45 49 66 61 18 55 55 60 55 61 58 68 55 54
A)
(+5)(+17)
(+7)
6
Isolation
(80-00 33 16
Hispanics
(+17)
(+2)(+12)
(+2)(+10)
(+24)
(+10)
(+15)
(+18)
(+2)(+4)(+13)
(+21)
(+8) (+10)
(+5)(+9)(+13)
(0) (+9)(+11)
(+10)
1
8 11 9 12(+11)
19
20 20 4 23 71 27 23 5 13
27 21 23
36 39 32 28 27
46(+6)
Research.
A)
(+9)(+4)(+4)
(80-0038 60 46
Dissimilarity
(-1)(-2)(-3)(+18)
(+3)(+6)
(+4)(+1)(+18)
(+9)(+19)
(+10) (+2)(-3)(+3)(+10)
(+16)
(+21)
(+3)(-5)(-9)(+10)
(+23)
(+19)
Regional
67 60 59 47 30 65 58 68 57 48
48 53 36 45 44 41 32 32 50 36 51 46 43 43
and
A)
(+6)(-2) (+4)
(80-0047 25 34
Exposure
A)
(-9)(-2) (-8)
Blacks
(80-0048 67 59
Isolation
A)
(-2) (-7)
(-10)
(80-0063 82 74
Dissimilarity
(-1)(+2)(+4)(+7)(-7)(+5)(+6)(+5)(+2)(-2)(+3)(+5)(+1)(+2)
28 28 29 42 11 41 31 42 44 24 41 48 46 35
(-4)(+2)(+4)(-8)(+6)(-4)(-6)(-5) (-2) (+1)
11 28 40 34 50 17 27 56 33 37
number.
Urban
whole
nearest
Comparitive
(-10)(-8) (-12) for the
(-8)(-10)
(-5)(-21)
(-9)(-10)
(-7)(-14)
(-8)(-7)(-3)(-10)
(-7)(-16)
(-18)
(0) (-11)
(-10)
(-11)(-10)
to
59 63 66 43 62 41 53 52 45 71 49 46 43 53
60(-3)
62 39 41 47 67 36 13 46 41
Center
rounded
are
(-13)
(-6)(-11)
(-7)(-14)
(-7)(-17)
(-22)
(-8)(-2)(-8)(-9)(-6) (-10)
(-3)(-6) (-7)(-13)(-6) (-10) Mumford
(-7)(-11)
82(0)
73 59 72 62
63 66 68 65 74 57 62 46 55 69 59 57 46 61
72 66 74 67 80(-3)
changes
Lewis
Theand
News
Point
Hill
and
indices
Census
the
of limitations,
River/Warwick
Hill
Beach/Newport
(Continued)
1
Petersburg/Clearwater
average
area
areas
York
space
average Bureau
to
U.S.Due
areaaverage
Orleans
Lauderdale
Philadelphia
Boston
Pittsburgh
Bergen/Passaic
Providence/Fall
Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High
Raleigh/Durham/Chapel
New
Nassau/Suffolk
Newark
Orlando
Ft. Norfolk/Virginia
Charlotte/Gastonia/Rock
New
Nashville
Atlanta
Baltimore
Tampa/St.
Miami
Columbus
Milwaukee/Waukesha
Washington,
Overall
Source:
Southern
Eastern
Notes:
Southern
Eastern
Metro
Midwestern
area
TABLE
average
DC
area
areas
DYNAMICSOF RESIDENTIALSEGREGATION
175
the newer cities of the West and Southwest (Farley& Frey 1994, Frey & Farley
1993, Logan 2001a). Finally, approximatelyhalf of the areas show double-digit
declines in isolation,althoughin manycases, exposureto whites eitherdeclinedor
remainedconstant.Thus,for the 50 regions,blackisolationdeclinedby an average
of 12%,but exposure to whites increasedby only 1%, on average.As indicated
previously,the majorityof the decline in black isolation is due mainly to their
increasingexposure to Hispanics (Alba et al. 1995, Frey & Farley 1993, Logan
2001a).
Trendsin Hispanic and Asian segregationare the opposite of those observed
for blacks.In most areas,Hispanic-whitesegregationremainsmoderate,isolation
low, and exposure to whites meaningful, despite explosive population growth.
Overall, increases in segregationrange from small to moderate.Hispanic-white
dissimilarityneverexceeds 68 (andonly five areasexceed 60, comparedto 28 for
blacks)andaveragesa low of 43 in the Southanda high of 57 in the East.Isolation
increasedmore substantially,yet the averageHispanicresides in a neighborhood
that is between 16%and 42% same-race(comparedto the averageblack person,
whose neighborhoodis between 18% and 59% same-race).Exposureto whites
declinedmore substantially.Finally,Asians remainthe least-segregatednonwhite
group.Increasesin dissimilarityand isolation (except for the West, where Asians
are most concentrated)are generallyless than 10% (the averageincreasefor the
50 regions was 3%), and declines in exposureto whites are comparableto those
experiencedby Hispanics, once again reflecting the rapid populationgrowth of
these largely immigrantgroups, concentratedsettlementpatterns,and declining
white populationshare.In contrastto the residentialpatternsof blacks,Hispanics,
and Asians, whites' exposure to minorities increased steadily over the past two
decades:In 2000, theminoritypercentagein the averagewhiteperson'scensustract
was a nontrivial20%, andresearchby Alba & colleagues (1995) documentssharp
declines in the numberof all-white neighborhoodssince 1970. In short,although
segregationpersists or increases for minoritygroup members,the averagewhite
personexperiencesmodest integration.11
Finally, a brief mention of trendsin suburbansegregationis warranted.12In
2000, nearly 60% of Asians, 50% of Hispanics, and 40% of blacks lived in the
suburbs,comparedto 71% of whites. These percentagesrepresentsubstantialincreases in minorityrepresentation;however,they have not been accompaniedby
meaningfuldeclines in suburbanresidentialsegregation.Patternsof suburbansegregation mirrorthose of the larger metropolitanarea of which they are a part,
indicating that new minority residents are moving to suburbswhere coethnics
were alreadypresentin 1990. Wheregroupsare smallestin number,they areleast
segregatedand least likely to establishsuburbanenclaves;however,in the regions
fornon-Hispanic
white-minority
11Data
groupexposurearenotshownherebutareavailable
Center(www.albany.edu/mumford/census).
fromtheLewisMumford
areasthatare outsideof
12Suburbs
are definedas residentialareaswithinmetropolitan
centralcities(Ellen2000,Schnore1963,Timberlake
2002).
176
CHARLES
where the majorityof blacks, Hispanics, and Asians live and are, therefore, a
largershare of the suburbanpopulation,"segregationis higher,more unyielding
over time, andminoritypopulationgrowthis more likely to be associatedwith the
creation or intensificationof ethnic enclaves" (Logan 2001b). Increasingminority suburbanizationwithin the context of persisting segregationhelps to explain
the rising economic segregationamong both blacks and Hispanics documented
by Jargowsky(1996). Minority suburbs-although betteroff than poor minority
neighborhoods-tend to be less affluent,have poorerqualitypublic services and
schools, and experience more crime and social disorganizationcomparedto the
suburbsthat comparablewhites reside in (Alba et al. 1994; Logan et al. 2002;
Pattillo-McCoy1999).
PERSPECTIVES
THEORETICAL
ON RESIDENTIAL
SEGREGATION
A large body of research attempts to explain the persistence of residential
segregation-particularly among blacks--despite the passage of antidiscrimination legislation, more favorableracial attitudesamong whites, and the dramatic
expansion of the black middle class. This section summarizesthree competing
explanationsfor persistingracial residentialsegregationthat garnerthe most research attention-objective differences in socioeconomic status, prejudice, and
housing-marketdiscrimination-and reviews majorresearchfindingscirca 1980.
Explanationsemphasizinggroup differencesin social class status are consistent
with the spatialassimilationmodel, whereasthe place stratificationmodel includes
explanationsplacingprimacyon persistingprejudiceand/ordiscrimination.Where
appropriate,I consideralternativeexplanationsthatdo not fit neatlyinto eithertheoreticalperspective.
SpatialAssimilation
Racial group differences in socioeconomic status characteristicsare well documented.On average,blacks andHispanicscomplete fewer years of school andare
concentratedin lower-statusoccupations,earn less income, and accumulateless
wealth comparedto whites (Farley 1996a, Oliver & Shapiro 1995). The persistence and severityof these differenceslead easily to the conclusionthatresidential
segregationby race is simply the logical outcome of these differences in status
and the associated differences in lifestyle (Clark 1986, 1988; Galster 1988; see
also Jackman& Jackman1983 on class identitiesas involvinglifestyle considerations). This assumptionis the basis of the spatialassimilationmodel, which asserts
thatindividualsconvertsocioeconomicgains into higher-qualityhousing,often by
leaving ethnic neighborhoodsfor areaswith more whites; for immigrants,it also
involves acculturation-the accumulationof time in the United StatesandEnglish
languagefluency.It should also be noted thatspatialassimilationis influencedby
DYNAMICSOF RESIDENTIALSEGREGATION
177
the metropolitan-area
characteristicsdiscussed in the previoussection (i.e., group
size, ratesof grouppopulationchange,and suburbanization)(Alba & Logan 1993,
Farley & Frey 1994, Massey & Denton 1985).13
STATUSDIFFERENCESTests of this hypothesis dominate segreSOCIOECONOMIC
gation researchover the past two decades, and findings consistently show that
Asians and Hispanics are always substantiallyless segregatedfrom whites than
blacks are.As Asian andHispanicsocioeconomicstatusimprovesandgenerations
shift from immigrant-to native-born,segregationfrom whites declines substantially. Conversely,objectivedifferencesin socioeconomic statusexplain only part
of blacks' residentialoutcomes (Alba & Logan 1993; Denton & Massey 1988;
Logan & Alba 1993, 1995; Logan et al. 1996; Massey & Denton 1987, 1993;
Massey & Fischer 1999). Moreover,studies distinguishingamong white, black,
and mixed-raceHispanics find that black and mixed-raceHispanics' residential
patternsmirrorthose of AfricanAmericans.The exceptionalexperienceof groups
with black skin leads Massey & Denton (1989, Denton & Massey 1989) to conclude thatblackspay a "higherconstantpenalty"for theirrace thatis not explained
by socioeconomic statusdisadvantage.
Until recently,the bases for these conclusions were aggregate-levelanalyses,
primarilyfromthe Massey-Dentonsegregationresearchprojectthatculminatedin
the publicationof AmericanApartheid.14Modeling aggregate-levelstudies suffer
from several potentially importantlimitations, however.In particular,modeling
individual-levelprocesses at the aggregatelevel (eithertract-or metropolitan-area
13Dueto space limitations,I limit my discussion of the spatialassimilationmodel to group
differencesin socioeconomic statusand acculturation.The majorityof multivariateanalyses of the spatialassimilationmodel include one or more measuresof metropolitancontext
(generallygroup size, rate of populationgrowth,region, and/ornew housing supply) and
find associationsbetween contextualeffects and segregationconsistentwith those outlined
in the previous section (see, for example, Alba & Logan 1993; Massey & Denton 1987;
Massey et al. 1994; Logan et al. 1996; South & Crowder1997a,b, 1998; South & Deane
1993). Older,largercities, locatedprimarilyin the Northeastand Midwest are more segregatedthanthenewercities of the WestandSouthwest.Oldercities haveecological structures
more conduciveto segregation:densely settled cores, thickly packedworking-classneighborhoods,and older housing stock built priorto the passage of the 1968 FairHousing Act
(for a detaileddiscussion, see Farley& Frey 1994).
14Twotypes of aggregate-levelanalysis are common. In the first,a populationis separated
into categoriesof a socioeconomic indicator(e.g., education,occupation,or income) and
segregationindices arerecalculatedwithincategoriesof the selectedindicator.If segregation
within categoriesof the indicatoris similarto the overall level, researchersconclude that
socioeconomic status is not influential in residential outcomes for that group (see, for
example, Darden 1995, Denton & Massey 1988, Massey & Fischer 1999). In the second
type of aggregate-levelanalysis, multivariatemodels predict residential outcomes (e.g.,
probabilityof contact with whites) using the averagecharacteristicsof blacks, Hispanics,
and Asians for a set of metropolitanareas (Massey & Denton 1987, Denton & Massey
1988).
178
CHARLES
level) risks problemsof ecological inferenceand introducesmulticollinearitythat
limits the numberof explanatorymeasures (Alba & Logan 1993, Massey et al.
1987, see also Massey & Denton 1987). Particularlyproblematic,homeownership is never includedin aggregate-levelstudies, despite its obvious implications
for residentialoutcomes (Alba & Logan 1993, Charles2001b, Oliver & Shapiro
1995, Yinger 1995).15Finally, these studies measureand/orpredict segregation
or, less frequently,central-cityversussuburbanlocationacrossmetropolitanareas.
At least as important,however,is to understandvariationsin the characteristicsof
the neighborhoods-both central-cityand suburban--wherevariousracial/ethnic
groups actually live. For example, suburbanblacks tend to live in older, inner
suburbsthat are less affluent,less white, and experience more crime and social
disorganizationcomparedto the suburbswherecomparablewhites live (Alba et al.
1994, Logan & Schneider 1984, Pattillo-McCoy1999); thus, not all suburbsare
equal, and aggregate analyses cannot detail these importantexperientialdifferences.
Individual-levelanalyses addressthese limitations and substantiallyenhance
ourknowledgeof residentialoutcomesby race;locationalattainmentmodels (Alba
& Logan 1991, 1992) have been particularlyinfluentialin this regard.16An innovative method introducedby Alba & Logan (1991, 1992) transformsaggregatelevel Census data (mainly STF3 and STF4 files) into the functionalequivalentof
individual-levelPublic Use MicrodataSample data with characteristicsof each
person's communityof residence appended,eliminatingissues of ecological inference and multicollinearity[Loganet al. 1996, p. 858; for a detailedexplanation
of the method,see Alba & Logan (1991, 1992)]. Models employ a broadrangeof
social class indicators,most notablyhomeownershipand family status to predict
neighborhood-leveloutcomes(e.g., medianincome andexposureto crime, as well
15Infairness,it shouldbe emphasized
that,untilrecently,obtainingCensusdatawithboth
individual-andaggregate-level
datawasextremelydifficult.Masseyet al. (1991),Massey
& Denton(1985),andVillemez(1980)areexceptionsto thetypeof analysisnotedhere;
analyses(specialeditionsof the 1970and/or1980PublicUse Files
all areindividual-level
thatthe CensusBureauappendedneighborhood
racialcompositionto) thatdo not suffer
fromproblemsof ecologicalinference.Resultsareconsistentwiththoseof aggregate-level
thatanyerrorsof substantive
studies;Massey& Denton(1985,p. 94) conclude,therefore,
analyses)areconservative
(ofaggregate-level
innature.Still,theseexceptions,
interpretation
counterparts,
liketheiraggregate-level
relyon a limitednumberof indicators(see Alba&
Logan1993).
mobilitystudiesaresimilarin thattheyconsidertheinfluenceof individual16Residential
levelcharacteristics
returns
onthelikelihoodof movingaswellasthelocational
toindividual
characteristics;they differ in that mobility studies limit analysis to movers, and data are
fromnationalpanelstudies(e.g., the PanelSurveyof IncomeDynamicsor the Annual
Housing Survey;see Massey et al. 1994; South& Crowder1997a,b, 1998; South& Deane
analysesof Censusdatabecausetheirresultsare
1993).I focushereon individual-level
however,thepatternof resultsis consistentforthetwotypesof
morebroadlygeneralized;
studies.
DYNAMICSOF RESIDENTIALSEGREGATION
179
as percentnon-Hispanicwhite andsuburbanversuscentral-cityresidence).Analyses comparethe characteristicsof suburbsinhabitedby whites, blacks, Hispanics,
and Asians ratherthan aggregate-levelsegregation.17
These improvementshave yielded interestingandimportantinformation.Most
interesting,perhaps,is that at the individual-level,blacks exhibit a positive association between socioeconomic statusand residentialoutcomes, althoughtheir
returnsto educationand income are significantlylower thanfor othergroups.Especially troublingis the negative effect of homeownershipon blacks' residential
outcomes.Counterto the benefitstypicallyassociatedwith owning a home (rather
thanrenting),blackhomeownersresidein neighborhoodsthataremoresegregated
and less affluentthan their rentingcounterparts--theyare the only group that is
consistentlypenalized for owning a home (Alba et al. 2000a, Logan et al. 1996).
Together,these differences keep blacks from reachingparity with whites at any
level of affluence--blacks live in neighborhoodsthatare, on average,15%to 20%
less affluentthan other groups with comparablestatus. Additionally,contraryto
the assertionthatblack residentialsegregationis unchangedby increasingsocioeconomic status, Alba et al. (2000a) find that middle-class and affluentblacks in
the most segregatedU.S. cities live in areas with substantiallymore whites than
their poor, inner-citycounterpartsdo. This is counterbalanced,however,by the
generally lower status of their white neighbors.Thus, the suburbanareas where
middle-classand affluentblacks live are significantlyless white and less affluent
thanthose of comparablewhites.
Patternsfor Asians and Hispanics,on the otherhand,are more similarto those
observedin the aggregate.Both show substantialresidentialgains with improved
socioeconomic status,andeffects for homeownershiparemixed (often nonsignificant andoccasionallynegative,althoughless so thanfor blacks);effects of education and income are large enough, however,that averageand affluentnative-born
Hispanicsand Asians live in communitiesthat are roughly equivalentto those of
comparablewhites (Logan et al. 1996, Alba et al. 1999). A comparisonof 1980
and 1990 data suggests a weakeningof the traditionalspatialassimilationmodel
regardingthe importanceof acculturation.Being native-bornand speaking only
English still improves Hispanics' locational attainment,but the latteris less importantin 1990 comparedto 1980; by 1990, neithercharacteristicdisadvantaged
Asians. The emergence of ethnic suburbanenclaves may account for this apparent weakeningof the traditionalspatialassimilationprocess by makingresidence
in high-status,suburbancommunitiesan option for recently arrivednon-English
speakerswith at- or above-averagesocial class characteristics(Alba et al. 1999,
2000b; Loganet al. 2002). Furthermore,"perceptibleAfricanancestry"costs black
because(a)segregation
is lowerinthesuburbs
compared
focusonsuburban
17They
residents
tothecentralcityforallgroups(seeMassey&Denton1989),suggesting
thattheinfluenceof
forthetwolocations,and(b)itrevealstheprocess
characteristics
is different
individual-level
thatdetermineslocation within suburbiaand elaboratesdifferencesin the characteristicsof
suburbanneighborhoodsacross racial/ethnicgroups(Alba & Logan 1993, p. 1400).
180
CHARLES
Hispanicsbetween $3500 and $6000 in locationalreturns,placing them in neighborhoods that are comparableto those of black Americans (Alba et al. 2000b,
p. 613).
Much of the research discussed to this point focuses heavily on the use of
statisticallyconvenient,but homogenizing,racialcategories.Consideringcharacteristics specific to immigrationmay account for some intragroupdiversity,and
it is certainly a step in the right direction;however, an importantbody of research documents meaningful differences among national-origingroups within
the same broadracialcategory,suggestingthe importanceof analysesthatare sensitive to these differences(see, for example,Portes& Rumbaut1996; Waldinger&
Bozorgmehr 1996; Waters 1990, 1999). At the aggregate level, Massey &
Bitterman's(1985) comparisonof Mexicans in Los Angeles and Puerto Ricans
in New York--demonstratingthatdifferencesin segregationareattributableto the
lattergroup'sgenerallylower socioeconomic statusand "blackness"-represents
both an importantexception to this generaltendency and evidence of potentially
importantintragroupvariation.
A final advantageof the individual-levelanalyses detailed above is the serious attentionseveral studies have paid to national-origindifferenceswithin each
of the four majorracial categories. Consistentwith assimilationhypotheses, for
example, Logan & Alba (1993) find thatthe more recently settled Irish-, Italian-,
and Polish-originwhites tend to reside in lower-incomeneighborhoodsthan the
earlier-arriving(e.g., British,French,and German)and otherwhite ethnic groups,
net of individual-levelcharacteristics.For "blacks,"results are consistent with
those detailedabove:Afro-Caribbeanblacks experiencemorefavorableoutcomes
and see betterreturnsto theirhumancapitalthanAfricanAmericansdo (Alba et al.
1999; Crowder1999; Logan & Alba 1993, 1995).18
National-origindifferencesaremost pronouncedamongAsians and Hispanics,
the two most heterogeneousand rapidly growing groups. Logan & Alba (1993)
find that Asian Indians,Filipinos, and Vietnamesetend to reside in less affluent
neighborhoodsthanChinese, Japanese,Koreans,and otherAsian groupsdo, suggesting that this effect may be tied to the extremepovertycircumstancesof their
home countries comparedto those of other Asian groups. Alternatively,Asian
Indians and Filipinos are not at all disadvantagedby poor English skills; in this
case, the researcherssuggest that this is because English is widely used in both
India and the Philippines.As a result, these groups arrivewith more exposureto
English; therefore,the "census self-assessmentof English ability has a different
meaningfor them"(Alba et al., 1999 p. 457; see also Jasso & Rosenzweig 1990).
18Ithas also been suggested that importantdifferences in socioeconomic status among
fromthe
WestIndianimmigrants
mayinfluenceresidentialoutcomes.Blackimmigrants
BritishWestIndies (mainlyJamaica)have significantlyhigherincomes, educationallevels,
employmentand homeownershiprates, and are more concentratedin high-statusoccupations than FrenchWest Indians(mainly Haitians)are;Dutch West Indiansfall in between
(Crowder1999, p. 103).
DYNAMICSOF RESIDENTIALSEGREGATION
181
The disadvantageassociatedwith poor English skills, moreover,declined considerablybetween 1980 and 1990 for the Chinese and Koreans,but increasedamong
the Vietnamese.19None of the Asian groups is meaningfully disadvantagedby
recent arrival(Alba et al. 1999).
Both national-originand racial classificationmatterfor Hispanics. PuertoRicans, Cubans,and all black Hispanicsreside, on average,in lower socioeconomic
statusneighborhoodsrelativeto otherHispanics,net of otherindividualcharacteristics (Alba & Logan 1993, pp. 260-64). Poor English skills negativelyimpactthe
likelihood of suburban(versus central-city)residence for Mexicans and Cubans,
but not for Dominicans and Salvadorans.Also, in sharp contrast to the Asian
groups,recentimmigrationto the United Statesis detrimentalto the likelihoodof
suburbanresidencefor all Hispanicgroups(Alba et al. 1999). Althoughlimitedin
number,these analyses highlightimportantvariationin residentialoutcomes and
in the factorsthat influence those outcomes that are hidden by the use of broad,
analyticallyconvenientracialcategories;futureresearchshouldcontinueto expose
the complicatedsocial realitieshiddenby this social science convention.
On the whole, conclusions of aggregate-levelstudies remainintact.The experiences of Hispanicsand (for the most part)Asians are largely consistentwith the
spatial assimilationmodel; blacks (African Americans and black Hispanics) on
the otherhand, do not see the same payoff for improvedsocial class status.This
is best illustratedby the negative effect of homeownership.Alba and colleagues
suggest that this representsthe operationof a dual housing marketthat restricts
black homeowners-but not black renters--to black neighborhoods,making it
difficultfor them to entersome neighborhoodsand addingto the cost they pay for
housing. Mixed effects of homeownershipamong Asians and Hispanics suggest
that a dual housing marketmay operateto a lesser extent for them as well (Alba
& Logan 1993, Alba et al. 1999, Logan et al. 1996, Massey & Denton 1993).
Finally, non-Hispanicwhites live in largely white and generally more affluent
neighborhoodsirrespectiveof their social class characteristics.The oppositional
experiencesof blacks and whites contradictthe tenets of spatialassimilationand
suggest the persistenceof an enduringsystem of racial stratification.
Place Stratification
The emergenceof raciallyseparateneighborhoodsresultedfrom a combinationof
individual-andinstitutional-levelactions.Scholarsgenerallyagreethatall levels of
government,as well as the real estate,lending, andconstructionindustries,played
criticalrolesin creatingandmaintaininga dualhousingmarketthatconstrainedthe
amongtheVietnamese
19Albaet al. (1999)suggestthatthecountertrend
is attributable
to
theirrefugeestatusduringthe1970s.Inthisperiod,housinglocationwasdetermined
largely
by resettlement
agencies;morerecently(1980s),housingdecisionsaremademoreon the
maybe enteringa
basisof householdneeds.AlbaandcolleaguesconcludetheVietnamese
groups(Albaet al. 1999,
settlement
phasecomparable
to theearlierphasesof nonrefugee
p. 457).
182
CHARLES
mobility options of blacks (for detaileddiscussions, see Massey & Denton 1993,
Meyer 2000, Yinger 1995). It was assumed by many, however, that passage of
the 1968 FairHousing Act markedthe beginningof the end of segregation.This,
however, has not been the case: residentialsegregationpersists, and substantial
evidence points to continued resistance to more than token numbers of black
(and, to a lesser extent, Hispanic) neighbors (Bobo & Zubrinsky1996; Charles
2000, 2001b; Farley et al. 1993, 1994; Meyer 2000; Zubrinsky& Bobo 1996)
and discriminatorypractices in the real estate and lending markets (Massey &
Lundy2001, Galster1990, Yinger1995). The place stratificationmodel punctuates
the centralityof these issues, arguingthat "[r]acial/ethnicminorities are sorted
by place according to their group's relative standing in society, [limiting] the
ability of even the socially mobile members to reside in the same communities
as comparablewhites" (Alba & Logan 1993, p. 1391). Whites use segregation
to maintainsocial distance, and therefore,present-dayresidentialsegregationparticularlyblacks' segregationfrom whites-is best understoodas emanating
from structuralforces tied to racialprejudiceand discriminationthatpreservethe
relative statusadvantagesof whites (Bobo & Zubrinsky1996, Logan et al. 1996,
Massey & Denton 1993, Meyer 2000).
Despite general agreementregardingthe role of prejudiceand discrimination
(both individualand institutional)in the emergenceof racially segregatedneighborhoods, the extent to which these factors are implicatedin the persistence of
segregationremains contested. Alternativeexplanationsdownplay the continuing salience of prejudiceand/ordiscriminationin favor of otherrace-relatedattitudes and perceptions.The in-grouppreferencehypothesis arguesthat all groups
have "strongdesires" for neighborhoodswith substantialnumbersof coethnics
(Clark 1992, p. 451) that reflect a simple, naturalethnocentrismratherthan outgroup hostility or an effort to preserverelativestatusadvantages.A strongerversion contends blacks' own preferencefor self-segregationexplains currentlevels of black-white segregation(see, for example, Patterson1997, Thernstrom&
Thernstrom1997). Accordingto the racialproxy (Clark1986, 1988; Harris1999,
2001) and the race-basedneighborhoodstereotypinghypotheses (Ellen 2000), it
is the collection of undesirablesocial class characteristicsassociatedwith blacks
or the neighborhoodswhere they are concentrated-joblessness, welfare dependence, proclivityto criminalbehavior-not race per se, thatmotivatesaversionto
black neighbors,not only among out-groups,but among blacks themselves. Still,
race is centralto each of these alternatives,and direct assessments of the role of
prejudice often include one or more of these alternativeexplanations.As such,
I addressthese alternativeexplanationswithin the context of stratification-based
explanations.
NEIGHBORHOOD
RACIAL
PREFERENCES
COMPOSITION
A well-established litera-
ture details black-whitedifferencesin preferencesfor integration.In theirclassic
article, "Chocolate City, Vanilla Suburbs,"Farley and colleagues (1978) introducedaninnovativeandhighlyregardedmethodfor measuringviews on residential
DYNAMICSOF RESIDENTIALSEGREGATION
183
White respondent scenarios
Card 1
Card2
Card3
Card4
Card5
Card4
Card5
Blackrespondent scenarios
Card1
Card2
Card3
neighborhoodcardsfor blackandwhiterespondentsfromthe
Figure 1 Farley-Schuman
1992-1994 Multi-CityStudyof UrbanInequality.
segregation.In the experiment,white respondentsare asked about their comfort
with and willingness to enter neighborhoodswith varying degrees of integration
with blacks;blackrespondentsreceive a similarexperiment:ratingneighborhoods
of variousracial compositions from most to least attractiveand indicatingtheir
willingness to enter each of the areas. In both cases, scenarios representrealistic assumptionsregardingthe residentialexperiencesand options of both groups;
neighborhoodcardssimilarto those used by Farleyand colleages arepresentedin
Figure 1 (for details, see Farleyet al. 1978, 1993).20
Resultsrevealedsubstantialresistanceby Detroit-areawhites to even minimal
levels of integration:25%said the presenceof a single black neighborwould make
them uncomfortable,40% said they would try to leave an areathatwas one-third
black, and nearly twice as many would leave the majorityblack neighborhood
(Farleyet al. 1978). Blacks, on the otherhand,showed a clearpreferencefor integration.Eighty-fivepercentchose the 50-50 neighborhoodas theirfirstor second
choice; when asked to explain their selection, two thirdsstressedthe importance
of racialharmony(Farleyet al. 1978, p. 328). Virtuallyall blacks were willing to
enterall threeintegratedneighborhoods,and 38%of Detroit-areablacks said they
would move into an otherwiseall-white neighborhood.
As partof the 1992-1994 Multi-CityStudy of UrbanInequality(MCSUI),the
Farley-Schumanshowcardmethodology was replicatedin Atlanta,Boston, Detroit,andLos Angeles; to enhanceourunderstandingof preferencesin multiethnic
20The1976Detroitareastudyintroduced
viewson racial
aninnovativewayof measuring
residentialsegregation
thathas influencedimportant
generalassessmentsof the statusof
AfricanAmericans(e.g.,Jaynes& Williams1989,pp. 141-44;Bok 1996,p. 182)as well
(Massey& Denton1993,Yinger
treatisesonracialresidential
as twoimportant
segregation
1995).
184
CHARLES
contexts, the experimentwas modified to include Hispanicsand Asians.21Analyses of neighborhoodracial composition preferencesbased on the MCSUI data
highlight the influenceof both respondent-and target-grouprace on attitudestowardresidentialintegration(Charles2001b; Clark2002; Farleyet al. 1993, 1997;
Zubrinsky& Bobo 1996). Relative to the 1970s, whites express greatercomfort
with higher levels of integrationand fewer said they would be unwilling to enter racially mixed areas.Although a sizeable majorityof whites express comfort
with a one-thirdout-groupneighborhood,a rankorderingof out-groupsis evident:
whites feel most comfortablewith Asians and least so with blacks (Hispanicsfall
in between), andcomfortdeclines as the numberof out-groupmembersincreases.
The patternof responses regardingwhites' willingness to enter racially mixed
neighborhoodsis similar, except that the decline in willingness to enter begins
earlier and is never as high as comfort with neighborhoodtransition;thus, 60%
of whites are comfortablewith a neighborhoodthat is one-thirdblack, but only
45% of whites are willing to move into that same neighborhood(Charles2001b).
Although reflecting meaningful improvementsin whites' attitudes,Detroit-area
whites standout as more resistantto integrationcomparedto whites in the other
cities (Farleyet al. 1997).
Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians all appearto want both meaningfulintegration
and a substantialcoethnic presence. The relative importanceof these competing
desires,however,dependson boththe respondent-andtarget-grouprace.The overwhelming majorityof blacks selected one of the two most integratedalternatives
irrespectiveof out-grouprace, althoughthe one with 10 black and 5 out-group
households is slightly more attractivethan the one that best approximatesa 5050 neighborhood.For Hispanicsand Asians, on the otherhand, target-grouprace
is especially important:when potentialneighborsare white, their most attractive
neighborhoodsare the same as those of blacks (Cards2 and 3), althoughthe order is reversed.When potentialneighborsare black, however,between 60% and
80%of both HispanicsandAsians find one of the two least-integratedalternatives
most attractive(Cards 1 and 2). Across respondentracial categories, the all-thesame-racealternativeis least attractivewhen potentialneighborsare white; however, Hispanics and Asians generallyfind this neighborhoodmore attractivethan
blacks do.22Both groups are also twice as likely as blacks to select the all-white
technique,onethirdof eachrespondent
racialcategoryin LosAnge21Usinga split-ballot
les (whites,blacks,Hispanics,andAsians)andBoston(whites,blacks,andHispanics)was
(e.g., one thirdof Hispanicscompletedthe
randomlyassignedto one of threeout-groups
onethirdcompleteda Hispanic-black
experiment,
Hispanic-white
andthereexperiment,
integration
withAsians).Exceptfordifferences
mainingonethirdof Hispanicsconsidered
in targetgroups,black,Hispanic,andAsianrespondents
all completedthesameversionof
& Bobo(1996).
theexperiment.
Fordetails,see Charles(2001b)orZubrinsky
22Research
suggestsimportantdifferencesby immigrantstatusand acculturation.
The
particularly
foreign-born,
thosewith5 yearsorless in theUnitedStatesand/orthosewith
limitedEnglishproficiency,
prefersubstantially
moresame-raceneighborscomparedto
andthosewho communicate
counterparts,
theirnative-born
efandlong-term-immigrant
fectivelyin English(Charles2000,2001b,2002).
DYNAMICSOF RESIDENTIALSEGREGATION
185
neighborhoodas theirfirstor secondchoice (approximately10%for Hispanicsand
Asians, comparedto 5%of blacks),althoughfor all threegroups,the all-out-group
alternativeis the least attractive.Patternsof willingness to enter neighborhoods
mirrorthosefor attractiveness.Forblacks,thesepatternssuggest a slight shift away
from a preferencefor 50-50 neighborhoodsand a significantdecline in willingness to be the only black family in an otherwiseall-whiteareasince 1976 (Charles
2001b; Farleyet al. 1993, 1997).
Othermultiethnicstudies of preferencesyield similarresults.Bobo & Zubrinsky (1996) analyze multiracialdata but measure attitudestoward one group at
a time using a single forced-choice item. Considerationof a single targetgroup
is a limitation of the Farley-Schumanmethodology in multiethnic contexts as
well, as aredifferencesbetween white and nonwhiteexperimentsthatmake direct
comparisonsdifficult. Charles(2000) presentsa majorinnovationon the FarleySchumanexperimentthatallows the simultaneousconsiderationof whites, blacks,
Hispanics,and Asians as potentialneighbors,using a single item in which all respondentsare asked to draw their ideal multiethnicneighborhood.Regardlessof
the measure,the patternof resultsis the same. All groupsexhibit preferencesfor
both meaningfulintegrationanda substantialpresenceof same-raceneighbors,althoughpreferencesfor same-raceneighborsarenot uniformacrossgroups:whites
exhibit the strongest preferencefor same-race neighbors and blacks the weakest. Moreover,preferencesvary by the race of the targetgroup and demonstrate
a racial rank ordering of out-groupsin which whites are always the most desirable out-groupand blacks are always the least desirable.Finally, preferences
for integrationdecline as the numberof out-groupmembersincreases.These bivariatepatternsmake it clear that race is influentialin the residentialdecisionmaking process (Bobo & Zubrinsky 1996; Charles 2001b; Farley et al. 1993,
1997; Zubrinsky& Bobo 1996). Therefore,the next logical questionis how does
race matter?
THEALTERNATIVES
Althoughsuggestive,thepatternsdetailed
PREJUDICE
VERSUS
above arenot conclusiveevidenceof the primacyof racialprejudice;however,several multivariateanalyses detail whetherand how race mattersat the individual
level. Using the MCSUIdatafor Detroit,Farleyandcolleagues (1994) showedthat
antiblackstereotypesare stronglyassociatedwith whites' discomfortwith black
neighbors,their likelihood of fleeing an integratingarea, and their willingness to
entermixedneighborhoods.Similarly,Timberlake(2000) concludesthatnegative
racial stereotypesand perceptionsof group threatfrom blacks are the strongest
predictorsof whites' resistanceto integration,basedon analysisof MCSUIdatafor
Atlanta.ForAtlantablacks, negativeracial stereotypesand (to a lesser extent)the
perceptionof whites as tendingto discriminateagainstothergroupscontributeto
theirintegrationattitudes.Bobo & Zubrinsky(1996) and Charles(2000) analyzed
multiracialdatafromLos Angeles, concludingthatnegativeout-groupstereotypes
reduce openness to integrationacross racial categories and influencepreferences
for both out-group(Bobo & Zubrinsky1996, Charles2000) and same-raceneighbors (Charles2000).
186
CHARLES
TABLE 2 Summarystatistics,multiethnicneighborhood
showcardexperiment,2000 GeneralSocial Survey
Respondent race
Target group race
Whites
Blacks
Hispanics
Whites
Mean %
No whites
All whites
57.11%
0
20.28
30.40%
9.21
0
31.50%
1.28
0
Blacks
Mean %
No blacks
All blacks
16.80%
24.71
0
42.01%
0.66
6.58
18.77%
17.95
0
Hispanics
Mean %
No Hispanics
All Hispanics
12.82%
32.17
0
14.47%
27.63
0
33.61%
2.56
1.28
Asians
Mean %
No Asians
All Asians
13.27%
32.75
0
13.11%
32.24
0
16.11%
19.23
0
Numberof cases
858
152
78
Notes: The percentageof each racialgroupin a respondent'sideal neighborhood
is the sum of each groupincludedin the experiment,dividedby the total number
of houses (14), excluding the respondent's.
p < .001 except: all Hispanics (p < .01), no Asians (p < .05), and mean percent
Asian (p < .10).
Each of these analyses includes a measureof respondents'perceptionsof the
social class positions of out-groupsrelative to their own group as a test of the
racial-proxyargument;Bobo & Zubrinsky(1996), Charles(2000), andTimberlake
(2000) also include measuresof in-groupattachmentto assess the relativeimportance of ethnocentrism.In all instances,racial stereotypesare the most powerful
predictorsof preferences.Effects for both perceivedsocial class disadvantageand
in-groupattachmentare always smallerand often nonsignificant;indeed, this patternpersists acrossrespondentracialcategoriesfor both out-groupand same-race
neighbors (Charles2000). Nationally representativedata from the 2000 General
Social Surveybothconfirmandstrengthenthe resultsof these single-city analyses.
Table2 summarizespreferencesfor white, black, andHispanicrespondentsand
reveals a patternof preferencessimilarto those found by both Bobo & Zubrinsky
(1996) and Charles(2000).23 Comparedto the data from Los Angeles, however,
23Themeasureof preferences
usedin the 2000 GeneralSocialSurveyis identicalto that
usedby Charles(2000).Respondents
areshowna neighborhood
cardsimilarto thosein
Figure1, exceptthatthehousesareblank.Theyaretheninstructed
as follows:"NowI'd
likeyouto imaginea neighborhood
would
thathadanethnicandracialmixyoupersonally
DYNAMICSOF RESIDENTIALSEGREGATION
187
bothwhitesandblacksprefermoresame-raceneighbors(8%and5%,respecNationally,whitesaremuchmore
tively),buttheoppositeis trueforHispanics.24
likelytoexcludeanout-group
entirely:25%of whiteswantnoblacksin theirideal
neighborhood
(comparedto one fifthin Los Angeles)andas manyas one third
Hispanics
exclude
to 16%-17%in LosAngeles).25Blacks
andAsians(compared
are also substantiallymore exclusionaryat the nationallevel, exhibitingrates of
Hispanic and Asian exclusion between three and five times higher than for Los
Angeles.
Finally, Table 3 presents correlationsbetween neighborhoodracial composition preferencesand each of the race-relatedattitudesoutlinedabove-perceived
social class difference,racialstereotyping,andin-groupattachment.In additionto
preferencesfor variousout-groupneighbors,the bottom panel of Table3 reports
correlationsbetween the selected racial attitudesand preferencesfor same-race
neighbors.The perceivedsocial class differenceand racial stereotypingmeasures
are scaled from -6 to +6. High (positive) scores indicate unfavorableratingsof
out-groupsrelative to one's own group, low (negative) scores indicate favorable
ratingsof out-groups,and a score of zero indicatesno perceiveddifference.26Ingroupattachmentcapturesthe extentto whichrespondents"feel close" to members
of theirracial group;scores range from 0 (not at all close) to 8 (very close). This
item was only asked of white and black respondents.
Consistentwith Bobo & Zubrinsky(1996), racialstereotypingis therace-related
attitudeor perceptionmost correlatedwith preferences,irrespectiveof respondent or target-grouprace. As stereotypesof out-groupsbecome increasinglyunfavorable,preferencesfor those groups as neighborsdecline and preferencesfor
feel most comfortablein. Here is a blank neighborhoodcard, which depicts some houses
that surroundyour own. Using the lettersA for Asian, B for Black, H for Hispanicor Latin
Americanand W for White, please put a letter in each of these houses to representyour
preferredneighborhoodwhere you would most like to live. Please be sure to fill in all of
the houses."
24In2000, respondentswere askedwhetherthey were Hispanicin additionto being racially
identifiedas white, black, or other.ForTables2 and3, anyoneprovidinga Hispanicidentity
is treatedas Hispanic; those unidentified"others"who remainedwere droppedfrom the
analysis.Due to the small numberof Hispanicrespondents(this groupis not intentionally
sampled),resultsfor this group shouldbe treatedas exploratory.
251suspect that differences in rates of inclusion/exclusion-particularly as they relate to
Hispanic and Asian neighbors-are a consequence of the populationcomposition of Los
Angeles comparedto the countryas a whole. Unlike the countryas a whole, Los Angeles is
heavily populatedby both HispanicsandAsians;these groupsmay not be on the "cognitive
maps"of residentsin cities thatdo not attractlarge numbersof immigrants.
consistency(Cronbach'salpha)amongthe five traitsincludedin the racialstereo26Internal
typing measure(intelligence,laziness, violence-prone,committedto strongfamilies, committedto fairnessandequalityfor all) varyby targetgroupas follows: for whites a = .62, for
blacks a = .67, for Hispanicsa = .57, and for Asians a = .64. In the same-racepreference
block, measuresof perceived social class difference and racial stereotypingare combined
for all out-groups(e.g., forblackrespondents,these measuresreflectperceptionsof/attitudes
towardwhites, Hispanics, and Asians).
188
CHARLES
TABLE 3 Correlationsof race-relatedattitudesand perceptionsand neighborhood
racial compositionpreferences,2000 GeneralSocial Survey
Respondent race
Target group race
Whites
Blacks
Hispanics
Total
Percentageof white neighbors
Perceived social class difference
Racial stereotyping
In-groupattachmenta
-
-.108
-.148+
.119
-.077
-.192+
-
-.095
-.167'
Percentageof black neighbors
Perceivedsocial class difference
Racial stereotyping
In-groupattachmenta
-.056
-.390'"
-.091*
-
-.302"
-.454'"
-
-.082*
-.390'"
-.037
Percentageof Hispanicneighbors
Perceived social class difference
Racial stereotyping
In-groupattachmenta
-.034
-.319*"'
-.150'
-.019
-.104
-.095
Percentageof Asian neighbors
Perceivedsocial class difference
Racial stereotyping
In-groupattachmenta
-.051
-.285*'
-.105'
.003
-.204*
.040
Perceivedsocialclassdifferenceb
.041
.074
Racial stereotypingb
In-groupattachmenta
.429**'
.142"*
.048
-.202+
-
.109"**
-.065'
-.305"'
-.141"
-.051
-.269'"
-.082*
Percentageof same-raceneighbors
.162+
-.064
.285*
.208'"
.500***
-
.421"
.104**
Notes: Figures are Pearsoncorrelationswith preferencesfor the correspondinggroup as neighbors.The perceived
social class difference and racial stereotypingmeasuresare scaled from -6 to +6. High (positive) scores indicate
unfavorableratings of out-groupsrelative to one's own group;low (negative) scores indicate favorableratings of
out-groups;0 indicatesno perceiveddifference.Internalconsistency (Cronbach'salpha)amongthe traitsincludedin
the stereotypedifference score (intelligence, laziness, violent, committedto strongfamilies, committed to fairness
and equalityfor all) varyby targetgroupas follows: for whites, a = .6217; for blacks, a = .6736; for Hispanics,a
= .5719; and for Asians, a = .6384.
aIn-groupattachmentquestionsask aboutfeelings of closeness to whites and blacks only.
bInthe panel of correlationsbetween racialattitudesandpreferencesfor same-raceneighbors,measuresof perceived
social class difference and racial stereotypesare combined for all out-groups(e.g., for Hispanic respondentsthese
measuresreflect perceptionsof/attitudesaboutwhites, blacks, and Asians).
+p < .10;'p < .05; *p < .01; ^p < .001.
same-raceneighborsincrease. This is especially true among whites, where correlations between racial stereotypingand preferencesare between two and four
times largerthanfor in-groupattachmentand those for perceivedsocial class difference are both weak and nonsignificant.Correlationsamongthese variablesare
weakestfor blacks.Of 12 figures,3 barelymeet the most-liberallimits of statistical
significanceacknowledgedin the social sciences. Hispanicsare in between these
extremes,exhibitingthehighestcorrelationbetweenbothperceivedsocial class difference andracialstereotyping,and preferencesfor black neighbors;stereotyping
DYNAMICSOF RESIDENTIALSEGREGATION
189
is only marginallycorrelated(p < .10) with preferences for white and Asian
neighbors.Despite some differences,preliminaryevidence from the 2000 General
Social Surveysubstantiatespriorfindingsfrom single-city analysesandhighlights
the primaryimportanceof racialprejudicerelativeto both concerns about social
class disadvantageand/or ethnocentrismin understandingneighborhoodracial
compositionpreferences.
More recently,Krysan& Farley(2002) supplementquantitativeanalyses with
an examinationof black MCSUI respondents'open-endedexplanationsof their
integrationattitudes.Contraryto proponentsof both the ethnocentrismand racial
proxy hypotheses,they find thatbelief in the principleof integrationand/ora desire to improverace relationsdrivesblacks' preferencesfor integration:This was
the most common explanationfor the attractivenessof the two most popular(and
most integrated)neighborhoods(see Figure 1, Cards2 and 3). Moreover,strong
desiresfor a substantialcoethnicpresenceare "inextricablylinked"to fearsof discriminationand white hostility (Krysan& Farley2002, pp. 968-69); the latteris
consistentwith otherdescriptiveanalysesdetailingan inverseassociationbetween
perceived white hostility and overall neighborhooddesirability(Charles2001b,
Farley et al. 1993, Zubrinsky& Bobo 1996). They find virtuallyno supportfor
eitherthe ethnocentrismor the racial-proxyhypothesis.Few blacks invokeethnocentric attitudes,even when favoringthe all-blackover the 50-50 neighborhood;
contraryto the assertion that blacks (and whites) use race as a proxy for negative neighborhoodcharacteristics,only 10% of black respondentscite negative
neighborhoodcharacteristicsas the primaryreasonto avoid all-blackareas.
A similar analysis examines open-endedelaborationsfrom "whites who say
they'd flee" (Krysan2002). Once again, evidence of ethnocentrismis sparewhen
consideringintegrationwithblacks.Concernsaboutculturaldifferencesweremore
salient for whites in Los Angeles contemplatingintegrationwith Asians and Hispanics, andareexpressedmainlyin termsof languagedifferences.Consistentwith
the racial-proxyandrace-basedneighborhoodstereotypinghypotheses,whites offer race-associatedreasonsmost often (e.g., concernsaboutcrime and/orproperty
values); however, meticulous analysis of the characteristicsof whites offering
clearly racial versus race-associatedresponses finds that education makes the
difference. More educated whites are both less willing to negatively stereotype
out-groupsandmore likely to offer race-associatedexplanationsfor theirdecision
to flee an integratedarea. Krysan (1998) suggests that because better-educated
respondentsare both more susceptible to social desirabilitypressuresand more
adept at articulatingtheirracialgroup'sinterestin more subtle ways (Jackman&
Muha 1984), the differencebetweenexplicitlyracialand so-calledrace-associated
explanationsis semantic:"[I]nthe end, each of the reasons is an articulationof a
racial stereotype"(Krysan2002).
The analyses discussed to this point representimportantmethodological,empirical,andsubstantivecontributionsto ourunderstandingof integrationattitudes.
Especially insightful are those analyses that elaboratepreferencesin multiethnic contexts and those that employ multiple methods to gain leverage on the
190
CHARLES
complexitiesof racialattitudes.Nonetheless, critics aptlypoint to importantlimitations associatedwith studies thatrely on measuresof expressedpreferences.In
particular,because it is clear to respondentsthattheirracialattitudesare at issue,
responses are susceptibleto social desirabilitypressuresand the difficultyof distinguishingbetweenthe directeffect of the racialcompositionof the neighborhood
and the indirecteffect of the neighborhoodcharacteristicsthat respondentsmay
associate with the racial composition of the neighborhood.Although preference
studies include a measureof perceived social class difference,other unmeasured
aspects of the proxy argument(e.g., crime, school quality) are left uncontrolled.
Each of these limitationscan bias results(Ellen 2000, Emersonet al. 2001, Harris
1999). Alternatively,tests of the racial-proxyhypothesis that use respondents'
actualresidentiallocation and the value of theirhomes as indicatorsof neighborhood desirabilityare confoundedby the fact that "[e]ven if people prefer to live
in racially mixed neighborhoods,they may not end up in such neighborhoods"
because of discriminationor a shortageof housing (Emersonet al. 2001, p. 924).
A recent analysisby Emersonet al. (2001) standsout for creativelyand effectively addressingthese limitationsusing a factorialexperimentto assess whites'
attitudestowardintegrationwith blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. Respondentsare
asked to imagine that they have two school-aged childrenand are looking for a
house;they havefounda house they like betterthananyother(it has everythingthe
respondentis looking for) that is both close to work and within their price range.
Before askingwhitesif theywouldbuy the home, they areoffereda set of randomly
generatedneighborhoodcharacteristics-public school quality,crime level, direction of propertyvaluechange,home valuecomparedto othersin the neighborhood,
and racial composition(between 5% and 100%Asian, black, or Hispanic). They
findthatthe presenceof HispanicsandAsians does not matterto whites, butblack
neighborhoodcomposition matterssignificantlyeven after controllingfor proxy
variables. Whites are neutral about buying a home in a neighborhoodbetween
10%and 15%black and areunlikelyto buy the home in a neighborhoodover 15%
black. This patternis especially pronouncedamong families with children.27
27Ellen(2000)arguesthattheheightenedsensitivityof whitehomeowners
and/orfamilies
it is actualormeasured
aschangeovertime)is
withchildrento racialcomposition
(whether
thanrace-based
evidencethatpureprejudiceis less important
stereotyping;
neighborhood
shouldnotvary,shearguesbythesestatusesamongwhites.Thepresenceand
pureprejudice
amongwhites,sheargues,indicatesthatwhitesareexpressing
strengthof thesedifferences
concernsaboutproperty
valuesandschoolquality.It is alsopossible,however,thatthese
simplyreflecttheincreasedsalienceof particular
differences
aspectsof blackstereotypesand/orparents.To
welfaredependence
andintellect,forexample-forwhitehomeowners
of blacksby housingtenureandparenting
testthis,I comparedwhites'racialstereotypes
statususingdatafromthe 1993-1994Los AngelesSurveyof UrbanInequality(results
morenegaarenot shown,butareavailableuponrequest).Ownersexpresssignificantly
tive stereotypesof blacksrelativeto whites(p < .001);a similarpatternemergeswhen
whiteparentsto nonparents,
comparing
signifialthoughthe differenceis notstatistically
cant.Differencesin perceptions
of blacks'socialclassstatusby tenureandparenting
status
DYNAMICSOF RESIDENTIALSEGREGATION
191
The overall conclusion to be drawnis that active racial prejudiceis a critical
componentof preferencesfor integration,andtherefore,the persistenceof racially
segregatedcommunities.Whites' racialprejudiceis a doublewhammy:influential
not only for its effect on theirown integrationattitudes,butalso for its implications
for minoritygroup preferencesand residentialsearch behavior.Areas perceived
as hostile towardparticularminoritygroups are also perceived as less attractive,
even when otheraspects of the communitiesshouldbe desirable(Charles2001b).
Indeed,blacksopenly admitthatfears of white hostility motivatedesiresfor more
thana handfulof coethnic neighbors(Krysan& Farley2002). Althoughthe influence of racial stereotypingis the same for all groups, all three nonwhite groups
want substantiallymore integrationthanwhites do. Contraryto the popularadage
that "birdsof a feather flock together,"ethnocentrismplays a minimal role at
best; moreover,with respectto blacks, the most thoroughand detailedanalysesto
date suggest thatwhites move out becauseblacks move in-black densitymatters
because the presence of too many blacks (and, to a lesser extent, Hispanics and
Asians) suggests a change in "traditionalstatus relations of relative dominance
and privilege"(Bobo & Zubrinsky1996, p. 904; see also Charles2000, Krysan
2002).28 In sum, the attitudes,preferences,and (potential) behaviors of whites
alone cannotfully accountfor actualresidentialpatterns;all groupsexpress some
desire for coethnic neighbors,and these preferencesplay a role in shapingactual
outcomes (Clark2002). A much more sizable share of availableevidence, however, points to the influentialrole of racial prejudice,both as a motivatingfactor
in the avoidance of particularout-groupsand as a motivatorof minority group
preferencesfor same-raceneighbors.
DISCRIMINATIONThe institutional practices that created and
HOUSINGMARKET
maintainedresidentialsegregationrepresentthe translationof white prejudiceinto
"systematic,institutionalizedracialdiscrimination"in the housingmarket(Massey
& Denton 1993, p. 51; Meyer2000; Yinger1995). A growingbody of empiricalevidence pointsto the persistenceof discriminationin the housing market,although
the formthatpresent-daydiscriminationtakes is markedlydifferentthanin previous eras (Bobo 1989; Cutleret al. 1999). Although formalbarriersto integration
have been eliminated, discriminatorywhite tastes remain; segregationpersists,
it is argued, through a process of decentralizedracism, in which "whites pay
more"to live in predominantlywhite areas(Cutleret al. 1999, pp. 445). As such,
Theseresultsareconsistentwitha pureprejudiceinterpretation:
werenonsignificant.
for
of blacks
whites,thesestatusesincreasethe salienceof widelyheldnegativestereotypes
and(potentially)
increasethemotivation
and/orlikelihoodof actingon theseattitudes.
28Negative
simpleout-group
racialstereotypes
capturetwovariantsof prejudice:
hostility
group(s);
the
and"asenseof groupposition"
thatmembers
of onegrouphaveabout(an)other
latteris a collectiveprocesswheregroupsdefinetheirsocialpositionsvis-h-viseachother
groupstatusorrelativestatusposition.
andthesociallylearnedcommitments
to maintaining
Whatmattersis themagnitude
of differencethatin-groupmembersperceivebetweentheir
own groupand particularout-groups(Blumer 1958, pp. 3-4; Bobo 1999).
192
CHARLES
discriminatorybehaviorhas become more subtle and thereforemore difficult to
detecteven by its victims (Galster1990, 1992;Yinger 1995). Since the mid-1950s,
auditstudieshave provenuseful in detectingthese subtleforms of discrimination.
In an audit study,pairsof trainedtesters--one white and the othereitherblack or
Hispanic-with similareconomic andfamily characteristicssuccessively inquired
about housing, carefully detailing their experiences with the real estate agent or
landlord.After a visit, each auditorcompletesa detailedreportof her experiences;
discriminationis defined as systematicallyless favorabletreatmentof the black
or Hispanictester and is documentedby directobservationduringthe interaction
(Ondrichet al. 1998). Housingunitsaresampledrandomlyfrommetropolitan-area
newspapers;examples of experiencesdetailedby auditorsrange from seemingly
race-neutralaspectsof interactionsuch as the promptnessof returningphone calls
or volunteeringto show an auditpair additionalunits, to the obviously racial act
of steeringminorityauditorstowardmixed or segregatedareas.
Despite its advantages,the auditmethodology is not without critics, most notably Heckman& Siegelman(1993) (see also Heckman1998). By samplinghousing units only from majornewspapers,for example,auditstudieslikely underestimate the incidence of discrimination.Otheraspects of the methodrun the risk of
overstatingthe frequencyof discrimination.As partof the trainingprocess,auditors
arefully informedof the purposeof the studyandas a resultmaybe unintentionally
motivatedto findit; similarly,it has been suggestedthatothercharacteristicsof the
individualauditorsmay influenceagent behavior(i.e., the presenceor absence of
facial hairand/oran accent).Thereis also concernaboutthe use of gross measures
of discriminationthatcount "all errorsmade"by agents/landlordsas unfavorable
or discriminatorytreatment,arguingthatthis inaccuratelyassumesthatfirmsnever
makerace-neutralerrors,andconfoundsrandomand systematiceffects. Heckman
& Siegelman (1993, p. 272) suggest beginningwith a net measureof discrimination experiencedby minoritytestersrelativeto theirwhite teammatesbecause (a)
it takesrace-neutralerrorsinto account,and(b) if the net measurerevealsevidence
of discrimination,the gross measurewill as well.
In response, Yinger (1993, 1995, 1998) agrees that audit studies measurediscriminationin a majorsegmentof the housing market-units advertisedin major
newspapers-that is accessibleto all homeseekers,irrespectiveof raceor ethnicity;
althoughresultscannotbe generalizedto all housing transactions,they do account
for a large shareof the action. Concedingthe potentialbenefitsof blind auditsfor
avoidingexperimentereffects, proponentsof full disclosurearguefor deliberately
informingauditorsof the natureand purposeof the study while at the same time
emphasizingthe importanceof accurate,completereportingavoids otherkinds of
"experimentereffects." Specifically,some minorityauditorsmay be upsetby blatantmistreatmentandunableto accuratelycompletetheirevaluations,invalidating
the audit.Moreover,both membersof an auditteam must receive identicaltraining to minimizebehavioraldifferences.Bringingteammatestogetherwithoutfull
disclosure opens the door for (inaccurate)speculationamong the auditorsabout
the purposeof the study and/orappropriatebehavior.With respect to aspects of
DYNAMICSOF RESIDENTIALSEGREGATION
193
auditors'appearancesor behavior-aside fromrace-that could influenceagents'
behavior,more recent audit studies are more careful in the selection of testers,
particularlywith respect to the presenceor absence of an accent (Yinger 1995).
Finally,althoughsimplegrossmeasuresof discriminationalmostcertainlyoverestimate the frequencyof systematicdiscriminationand should be interpretedas
upper-boundestimates of discrimination,net measuressubtractboth randomand
systematicdifferencesin treatmentand probablyunderestimatethe frequencyof
discrimination.As a consequence,net measuresunderestimatethe gross incidence
of discrimination(Yinger 1995, pp. 45-46). Analyses of audit studies generally
presentnet measuresfollowed by gross measures.Yingerpointsout thatthe "story
told by the simple net measureis bleak enough... in some ways the storymay be
even worse"(1995, p. 46). In light of such intense scrutiny,researchon housing
marketdiscriminationbasedon auditstudiesis highlyregardedin boththe research
and legal communitiesand is now widely accepted for use both as enforcement
tools andas evidenceof discriminationin U.S. courts(Metcalf 1988, Yinger1998).
Bothnational-andlocal-level studiesfindevidenceof substantialdiscrimination
thathas not changed meaningfullyover time (Yinger 1995, 1998). In a review of
50 local audit studies completed throughoutthe United States duringthe 1980s,
Galster (1990) concluded that racial discriminationis a dominantfeatureof the
housing market,conservativelyestimatingthat(a) housing discriminationagainst
black and Hispanic home and apartmentseekers occurs in roughly half of their
interactionswith agents or landlords,(b) the discriminationis subtle and difficult
for the individualto detect,and(c) the frequencyof discriminationhadnot changed
over time (Galster1992, p. 647). These figuresareconfirmedby evidencefromthe
1989 Housing DiscriminationStudy (HDS), the most recent nationalauditstudy.
In ClosedDoors, OpportunitiesLost, Yinger(1995) deliversa comprehensiveand
influentialdiscussion of housing marketdiscrimination,using HDS datato detail
the incidence and severityof discrimination.At the beginningof a transaction,an
individualinquires about an advertisedunit and then asks about the availability
of other,similarunits, at which time an agent may withhold informationor limit
the numberof units shown to the client. In the second stage, the actions taken
by agents to facilitate the transactionare considered. These would include the
discussion of terms and conditions, the agent's sales effort, and/orassistance in
securing financing;at this point, an agent may offer less assistance to minority
clients. The third aspect of the interactioninvolves the geographic location of
units otherthanthe advertisedunit thatopened the interaction.Access to housing
is constrainedif a client is only shown housing in neighborhoodswith particular
racial/ethnicmake-ups(Yinger 1995, pp. 31-33).
Duringthe firststage of the interaction,Yingerfoundthatblacks andHispanics
are denied access to housing between 5% and 10% of the time-information
is completely withheld.More often, minorityaccess to housing was constrained:
Black andHispanictesterslearnedabout25%fewerunitsthancomparablewhites.
Whites were also significantly more likely to receive other forms of favorable
treatment,including follow-up calls, positive comments about an availableunit,
194
CHARLES
and special rental incentives (e.g., one month's free rent or a reduced security
deposit).Minorityauditorssufferedmanyminorinconveniences,includingwaiting
longer to be served, inattentionto their housing needs but overemphasison their
incomes, and less assistance with obtaining financing.Racial/ethnic steering is
also common. Yingerestimatesthatblack andHispanichomeseekersvisiting four
real estate agents will encountersteering40% and 28% of the time, respectively,
whereaswhites aremore likely to hearnegativecommentsaboutintegratedareas.
Racial/ethnicsteeringof this sortis prohibitedby fairhousinglegislation;however,
steering throughmarketingpractices is completely legal, and evidence suggests
thatrealestateagenciesdo muchof theirsteeringthroughtheirmarketingpractices.
Units in black neighborhoodsarenot advertisedas often, have fewer open houses,
and are more likely to be representedby firms that are not part of a Multiple
Listing Service. This may also be an issue for units in predominantlyHispanic
areas.These practicesare the exact opposite of those employed for units in white
neighborhoods(Yinger 1995, pp. 55-59).
A growingbody of evidence documentsracialdiscriminationin lending as well
(Dedman 1988, 1989; Jackson 1994). The Boston Fed Study compares conventionalloan denialratesfor whites, blacks,andHispanicsin Boston using 1990 data
fromthe HomeMortgageDisclosureAct supplementedwithothervariablesknown
to influence credit decisions. Together,these data offer "themost comprehensive
set of credit characteristicsever assembled"(Yinger 1995, p. 71, for details, see
Munnell et al. 1996). Results from the Boston Fed Study indicatethatcontrolling
for "therisk and cost of defaultand for loan and personalcharacteristics,"blacks
and Hispanicsare 56% more likely thanwhites to be denied a conventionalmortgage loan, which amountsto a minoritydenial rate of 17%,comparedto a white
rateof 11%.Analysis of the Boston Fed databy Carr& Megbolugbe(1993) found
thatminoritiesreceive systematicallylower creditratings.This meansthata "slow
paying" white applicant,for example, would be consideredcreditworthy,but a
similarblack applicantwould not. Thereis evidence of racialbias in nearlyevery
other aspect of the lending process, includingprivatemortgageinsurance,redlining by home insurancecompanies, methods of advertisingand outreach(Yinger
1995, p. 83-85), and bank branchlocations and closing patterns(Caskey 1992),
in additionto evidence of an associationbetween the likelihood of blacks' loan
approvalandthe racialcompositionof the financialinstitutionworkforce(Squires
& Kim 1995). The latterconfirmsevidence thatprejudiceand economic interests
motivatebiased behavior(Yinger 1995, Ondrichet al. 1998).
More than a decade has passed since the collection of the 1989 HDS. To remedy this, researchersat the Urban Instituteare back in the field for HDS 2000.
This updatedstudy promises to be the most ambitiousand thoroughanalysis to
date. In additionto black/whiteand Hispanic/whitetests replicatedfrom the 1989
HDS for comparativepurposes,HDS 2000 will ultimatelyincludetests of housing
marketdiscriminationagainst both Asians and Native Americans (Turneret al.
2002). Newly releasedPhase I resultsoffer mixed messages aboutchanges in the
incidenceof housingmarketdiscriminationagainstblacks andHispanicssince the
DYNAMICSOF RESIDENTIALSEGREGATION
195
1989 study,revealingboth improvementand persistentdiscrimination.Improvementsin the sales marketareencouraging;in 2000, bothblacksandHispanicswere
significantlyless likely thanthey were in 1989 to receive consistentlyunfavorable
treatmentrelative to whites. For blacks, the overall incidence of white-favored
treatmentdroppedto 17%in 2000, down 12 percentagepoints over the 10-year
period.Despite this overallimprovement,blacks arenow more likely to be steered
away frompredominantlywhite neighborhoodsthanthey were 10 years ago. The
overall incidence of discriminationagainstHispanicsdeclined by 7.1 percentage
points over the decade (to 19.7%)and saw no significantchange in the likelihood
of geographicsteering(Turneret al. 2002). The experienceof black and Hispanic
renters,however,offers little optimism.Blacks are significantlyless likely to receive unfavorabletreatmentthan in the previous decade; however,the decline is
much smaller(9%)thanin the sales market.Moretroublingis thatHispanicrenters
show no significantchange in theirlikelihood of receiving unfavorabletreatment
relativeto whites, and they now experience a higher incidence of discrimination
(26%) thantheirblack counterparts(Turneret al. 2002).
In preparationfor the Asian and Native Americanaudits, Phase I of the 2000
HDS includespilot studiesfor bothgroups-Chinese andKoreansin Los Angeles,
SoutheastAsians in Minneapolis,and Native Americansin Pheonix. In Los Angeles, resultssuggest thatChineseandKoreanrenters"mayface differentpatterns
of adversetreatment"thantheirblack and Hispaniccounterpartsdo (Turneret al.
2002, p. 4.18). Results indicate that both groups are told about and shown more
units than their non-Asian minority counterparts;on the other hand, black and
Hispanictestersreceivedbetterservice from agents thaneitherAsian group.DiscriminationagainstChineseandKoreansin the sales market,however,is similarto
thatof blacksandHispanics-indeed, Koreanhomebuyershavethe highestoverall
net estimateof discrimination(22.2%) for any of the minoritygroups studiedin
Los Angeles (Turneret al. 2002).
Turnerand colleagues (2002) reportedthat local organizationshad difficulty
recruitingand retaining Southeast Asian and Native American testers because
(a) little testing has been conducted with these groups in the past and (b) few
of these testers had any experiencewith homeownershipand found it especially
difficult to complete sales audits. These challenges help to inform subsequent
tests. As a result, pilot-testresults are only availablefor the rentalmarket,where
both groups appearto experience significantdiscrimination(Turneret al. 2002,
p. 2.6). SoutheastAsian rentersin Minneapolisface more adversetreatmentthan
either of the Asian groups in Los Angeles, and their experiences more closely
mirrornationalresults for black and Hispanicrenters,particularlyin the areasof
housing availabilityand inspections.Native Americanrentersexperienceadverse
treatmentat levels slightly above those found at the nationallevel for blacks and
Hispanics(Turneret al. 2002). These exploratoryresultsillustratethe value of fullanalysesof residentialprocesses;we look forward
fledgedmultiethnic/multiracial
to the completionand disseminationof results from Phases II and III of the 2000
HDS.
196
CHARLES
The importantinformationprovidedby national audit studies comparableto
both the 1989 and the 2000 HDSs is juxtaposed by significant challenges involved in utilizingthe method(e.g., training,recruiting,andmaintainingminority
testers);chief amongthese challengesis, no doubt,the substantialexpense of these
studies. Recent researchby Massey & Lundy (2001) offers a lower-cost alternative to the in-personaudit method used in the 1989 and 2000 HDSs: conducting
a telephone-basedaudit study of racial discriminationin the Philadelphiarental
housing market.Citing evidence that individuals "are capable of making fairly
accurateracial attributionson the basis of linguistic cues," the authorsarguethat
a good deal of discriminationis likely to occur before a personalencountercan
takeplace (Massey & Lundy2001, p. 454). They findthatthis is, in fact, the case:
Comparedto whites, blacks were significantlyless likely to speak to the rental
agent and, if they spoke to a landlord,significantlyless likely to be told of a unit's
availability.Alternatively,blacks were more likely thanwhites to have theircredit
worthinessmentionedas a potentialobstacle in qualifyingfor a lease (Massey &
Lundy 2001, p. 466).29
Thus, in one way or another,and to a greateror lesser degree, discrimination
in the housing marketconstrainsthe ability of nonwhitesto rent and/orpurchase
housing. Access to housing is constrained,the searchprocess is more unpleasant
(i.e., more visits, more waiting,etc.), homeseekersreceive farless assistancefrom
lenders in the mortgageapplicationprocess and are more likely to have their applications denied, and their moving costs are higher.Yinger estimates that every
time that black and Hispanic households search for housing-whether they encounterdiscriminationor not-they pay a "discriminationtax" of approximately
$3,000. Cumulatively,he estimates that blacks and Hispanics pay $4.1 billion
per year in higher search costs and lost housing opportunities.Included in this
the
29Thisapproach-usingthe telephoneratherthanface-to-faceinteraction-addresses
betweenpairsof testersresultfromunmeasured
intreatment
difpossibilitythatdifferences
conducted
byPurnelland
andis similarto research
ferencesintheirpersonalcharacteristics
employedandtheoverallresults.
colleagues(1999)withrespectto boththemethodology
Similarly,a recentstudyof racialdiscrimination
in theChicagoandBostonlabormarkets
to respondto advertised
positionsby mail.Matchedpairs
employedtheauditmethodology
of resumesmanipulated
theperception
of raceusingeitheranobviouslyAfricanAmerican
(e.g.,Tamika,Jamal)ora white-sounding
possible
name(e.g.,Kristen,Brad),eliminating
&Mullainathan
fromotherexperimenter
biasintreatment
characteristics.
resulting
Bertrand
thatthismanipulation
producesa significant
gapin therateof callbacksfor
(2002)reported
interviews.Specifically,whitenamesreceivedroughly50%morecallbacksthanAfrican
American names. Moreover,an additionalmanipulationof qualificationsfound that, for
whites, higher-qualityresumes increase callbacksby 30%;for blacks, resume qualityhas
no effect on the likelihoodof callback.Resultsof this study,andof Massey & Lundy(2001),
supportthe reliabilityof face-to-face audit studies as evidence of discriminationbecause
both find ample evidence withoutface-to-face contact.
DYNAMICSOF RESIDENTIALSEGREGATION
197
estimate is the decision of 10% of blacks and 15% of Hispanics not to look for
housingbecausethey anticipatediscrimination(Yinger1995, pp. 95-103; for more
on the impactof anticipateddiscriminationon searchbehavior,see Farley 1996b).
By makingit moredifficultfor minoritiesto purchasehousing,discriminationcontributesto racialdisparitiesin homeownershipandwealth accumulation,which in
turnfosterpersistingsuburbanresidentialsegregation.
THE CONSEQUENCESOF RESIDENTIALSEGREGATION
A voluminous body of research documents the powerful influence of place on
individuallife chances. Concentratedpoverty neighborhoodsexhibit high rates
of long-termjoblessness, out-of-wedlockbirths, school drop-out,crime and social disorder,and lower average wages for those who work (Cutler & Glaeser
1997, Jargowsky1996, Krivo & Peterson 1996, Massey & Denton 1993, Wilson
1987). Withoutsufficientresources,publicservices-particularly publicschoolsdeteriorateas well. Residential segregationis, as detailed at the outset, deeply
implicatedin the concentrationof poverty in black communities.Yet, even after
accountingfor the social and economic disadvantagesassociatedwith residential
segregation,Cutler& Glaeser(1997, p. 865) found that"aone-standard-deviation
reductionin segregation(13 percent)would eliminate one-third"of white-black
differencesin ratesof high school completion,single parenthood,andemployment
as well as earnings.
The neighborhoodswhere poor blacks are concentratedare characterizedby
extremelevels of disadvantage,and middle-classand affluentblacks are exposed
to higherlevels of neighborhooddisadvantagethantheirstatuswould imply (Alba
et al. 1994, Massey & Fischer 1999, Pattillo-McCoy1999, Wilson 1987). Suburban blacks are as segregatedas their central-citycounterparts;their suburbs
are part of a contiguous set of black neighborhoodsthat are, collectively, the
ghetto, differentiatedonly by their status as the "best, mixed, and worst areas"
(Galster 1991, Jargowsky & Bane 1991, Logan 2001a, Morenoff & Sampson
1997, Pattillo-McCoy1999). Indeed,the well-knownperils associatedwith ghetto
life documentedby quantitativeresearchers(Jargowsky1996, Cutler & Glaeser
1997, Wilson 1987) andethnographerslike Anderson(1990, 1999) andVenkatesh
(2000) are found, albeit to a lesser degree, in the neighborhoodsof middle-class
blacks (see, for example, Alba et al. 1994, Pattillo-McCoy 1999, Timberlake
2002). In a study of Philadelphia,Massey and colleagues (1987) documented
rates of welfare dependence, out-of-wedlock births, and below-averageeducational outcomes several times higher than those of comparablewhites, and the
experienceof middle-class blacks is only marginallyimprovedover that of poor
blacks.
The clusteringof blacks within an expansive ghetto underminesblack homeownership,eitherbecause housing in these areasis unattractiveto residentsor because of difficultiesassociatedwith securinglending;segregationalso undermines
198
CHARLES
Hispanic home ownership(Flippen 2001, pp. 354-5).30 The dwellings occupied
by blacks (and black Hispanics) are older, of poorerquality,and depreciatedin
value relativeto similarwhites (Massey & Denton 1993;Rosenbaum1994, 1996),
and differencesin home values andratesof ownershipareimplicatedin persisting
black andHispanicwealthdisparities-$414 billion and$186 billion, respectively,
relativeto whites (Oliver& Shapiro1995, Yinger 1995). Exposureto crime is also
a persistentconcernbecause "eventhe most affluentblacks are not able to escape
from crime, for they reside in communitiesas crime-proneas those housing the
poorest whites (Alba et al. 1994, p. 427). Thus, whites' worst urbancontexts are
betterthan"theaveragecontextof blackcommunities"(Sampson& Wilson 1995,
p. 42).
Thus, as a consequenceof residentialsegregation,the vast majorityof blacks
experience residential circumstancesthat are-to a greater or lesser degreedetrimentalto theirfuturesocial mobility because "anyprocess that concentrates
poverty within racially isolated neighborhoodswill simultaneouslyincrease the
odds of socioeconomic failure within the segregatedgroup"(Massey & Denton
1993, p. 179). Indeed,in-depthinterviewswith employersrevealthatspace is used
as a mechanismfor discriminatingagainstminorityjob applicants(Kirschenman
& Neckerman1991, Wilson 1996). A recentstudyof participantsin the Gautreaux
program-one of the first scattered-site,low-income housing programs-details
substantialimprovementsin the educationaland employmentoutcomes of those
who movedwith theirfamiliesfromsegregatedurbanhousingprojectsto predominantlywhite suburbancommunities.Comparedto theircity-dwellingcounterparts,
Gautreauxparticipantswere significantlymore likely to be in high school, in a
college-prep track,enrolled in a four-yearcollege, employed with benefits, and
not outside eitherthe educationalor employmentsystems. Many of the suburban
participantssaid that safety contributeda great deal to their success (Rubinowitz
& Rosenbaum2000).
Ongoingresearchby Massey,Charles,andcolleagues (Massey& Fischer2002,
Charleset al. 2002) finds a similarrelationshipbetween neighborhoodviolence
and the educationaloutcomes of middle-class and affluentstudents at selective
colleges and universities.For both blacks and Hispanics,growingup undersegregatedcircumstancessignificantlylowerslateracademicperformance.The negative
effect holds after controllingfor socioeconomic status and is not attributableto
differences in school quality or variationsin intellectual, social, or psychological preparationamong students from integratedand segregatedneighborhoods.
Apparently,segregationmattersbecause it results in exposureto unusuallyhigh
levels of violence while growing up. These studentsare also more likely to experience stressfullife events that lead to greaterfamily stress, poorerhealth,and
30ForHispanics,however,the centralissue is a shortageof housing due to largepopulation
growthunderconditionsof segregation.Unlike blacks,however,clusteringin barriosfacilitates ownershipbecause thereis greateraccess to informationand coethnic real estate and
lending agents thatbufferhomeseekersfrom discriminationin the largermarket.
DYNAMICSOF RESIDENTIALSEGREGATION
199
greaterfamily involvementwhile in college-all of which negativelyimpact academic performance(Charleset al. 2002). Although substantiallybetter off than
theirpoorcounterparts,residentialsegregationlimits black andHispanicstudents'
ability to reachtheirfull potential.
CONCLUSION
The past decade has seen a remarkableincreasein our understandingof the processes that maintainracially segregatedneighborhoodsin the United States. Increasing attentionto the multiethniccharacterof many metropolitanareas-and
of our nation-has improvedourunderstandingof groupdifferencesin locational
returnsto humancapitalandhow the racialattitudesof the fourmajorracialgroups
contributeto residentialpatterns.Indeed, with so little informationregardingthe
racialattitudesof nonwhitesor of whites towardHispanicsand Asians, this alone
is a boon to the study of race relations. The use of audit methodology has forever alteredthe landscapeof discussion regardingdiscriminationin the housing
and lendingmarkets,detailingwidespread,currentdiscriminationagainstblacks,
Hispanics,andpreliminarilyAsians andNative Americansthatoccursat virtually
every point in the searchprocess. The expansionof much of this work to include
the four majorracialcategoriesis an advancethatcannotbe underscoredenough.
As our nation becomes increasingly"prismatic,"understandingthe dynamics of
race relationsand processes of social mobility becomes both more complicated
and more important.
Logan and colleagues (2002, p. 320) recently lamentedthat "we are near the
limit of what can be accomplishedthroughthe analysis of publicly availablecensus data."Theirresearchis particularlyillustrativeof the benefitsof highlighting
the nation'sincreasingmultiethnicity;still, locationalattainmentmodels thatrely
solely on census datacannotadequatelyassess the effect of massive disparitiesin
accumulatedwealth, nor can they accountfor the mannerin which respondents'
attitudesinfluencetheirresidentialoutcomes. The majorlimitationto researchof
this sort,then, is its inabilityto capturethe dynamicnatureof residentialsegregation. This is a monumentaltaskat the nationallevel, but seems possible in selected
metropolitanareas.
Futureresearchshould continue to actively engage this complexity. To date,
much of what we know regardingthe racial attitudesof Hispanics and Asians
is limited to analyses of Los Angeles (and, to a lesser extent, Boston). Regional
differencesin settlementpatternsand the vast heterogeneitywithin these broad
racial categories make it imperativethat we continue to pursue informationon
these groupsandpush past the convenienceof broadracialclassificationschemes.
In the area of individual-levelracial attitudes,the factorialexperimentaldesign
introducedrecently by Emerson and colleagues (2001) presents a substantial
improvementon prior methods and should be pursued.Futureresearch should
vary factorsthat they did not (e.g., the presence of children),consider the importance of the characteristicsof surroundingneighborhoods,move beyond biracial
200
CHARLES
neighborhoodsand offer the full, multiethniccomplementof neighbors, and incorporatenonwhiterespondents(Emerson2001, p. 932).
Qualitativeanalyses--whether from elaborationsto closed-endedquestionsor
in-depthinterviews-represent anotherdirectionfor futureresearch.The next logical step in this case is to explore the attitudes,perceptions,andjustificationsof
Hispanicsand Asians for theirneighborhoodracialcompositionpreferences;this
charis particularlyimportantfor capturingthe importanceof immigration-related
acteristics.Ongoingresearchby Charles(unpublishedobservations),for example,
details importantdifferencesin the motivationsbehindpreferencesfor same-race
neighborsbased on immigrantstatus and English language ability. Results from
Phases II and Ill of the 2000 HDS, moreover,will providenew and much-needed
informationon the housing marketexperiencesof Asians and Native Americans,
and for the first time, the ability to make comparisonsamong nonwhite groups.
Whatwe have alreadylearnedfrom the Phase I resultsprovidesvaluableinformation aboutchangesin the experiencesof blacks andHispanicssince the 1989 study.
Periodicfollow-upsof nationwidehousingmarketauditstudiessimilarto the 2000
HDS would continueto keep us abreastof the extentto which discriminationin the
housing marketpersists. Similarly,updatedanalysis of nationallyrepresentative,
multiraciallending marketdata, preferablyat regularintervals, would provide
crucial and complementaryinformationon this aspect of the residential sorting
process.
Finally, as is characteristicof social science research,the tendencyhas been to
focus on the problem-segregation. Withoutdoubt,this has been justified, given
the deleteriouseffects of segregationon intergrouprelations,social mobility,personal safety,andultimately,effortsto reduceracialinequalityin America.Relative
to the body of researchon segregation,however,far too little attentionis paid to
understandingthe processes that produceand maintainthe small but meaningful
numberof stably integratedneighborhoods.Although not discussed at length in
this review,effortsto understandracialresidentialpatternsthatfocus on the comparativelysmall but criticallyimportantnumberof success storiesratherthan our
well-known failures are a much-neededbreathof fresh air,remindingus that, althoughfragileandfew andfarbetween,"raciallyintegratedneighborhoodsarenot,
as once thought,inevitablydoomed to rapidresegregation"(Ellen 2000, p. 152).
To wit, a study of 14 stably integratedurbancommunitiesestimates that as
many as 10 million Americansreside in racially/ethnicallydiverse communities,
areas defined as having racial/ethniccompositions closest to city racial/ethnic
averagesin both 1980 and 1990, althoughmost have been integratedfor longer
(Nydenet al. 1998, p. 6). More recently,Ellen (2000) examinesthe characteristics
of stablyintegratedneighborhoodsand theirresidents,analyzingdatafor 34 U.S.
metropolitanareas.She estimatesthatnearly20% of all U.S. neighborhoodswere
racially mixed in 1990; these neighborhoodswere home to 15% of whites and
roughlyone thirdof blacks.Moreover,morethan75%of neighborhoodsthatwere
integrated(between 10%and50%black)in 1980 remainedso a decadelater(Ellen
2000, p. 1).
DYNAMICSOF RESIDENTIALSEGREGATION
201
Both studies find that stably integratedcommunitiestend to be economically
diverse, includingmiddle-class,college-educatedhomeownerswith professional
occupations, as well as low-income families in entry-level, service-sectorjobs.
This economic diversity tends to reflect the presence of varied housing opportunities, includingrentalhousing constitutingat least 25% of housing units. Integratedcommunities also tend to have attractivephysical characteristics(e.g.,
good location,architecturallyinterestinghomes, and a secureset of neighborhood
amenities),places where cross-racialinteractiontakesplace as partof day-to-day
life (e.g., grocery stores, schools, parks, or neighborhoodfestivals), and strong
community-basedorganizationsand social institutionscommittedto maintaining
diversity--either directly or indirectlyby addressingcommunitywide,nonracial
service issues (largely schools and safety, but also neighborhoodpreservation)
and/orpromotingcross-groupdialogue (Ellen 2000, Nyden et al. 1998). Stable
integrationis also more likely in communitiesthataremore distantfrom an area's
centralminorityconcentrationandin areaswith smalleroverallblack populations
without an intense racial competitionfor housing and widespreadneighborhood
change (Ellen2000, pp. 153-54). Whetherby design or by circumstance,residents
of these communitiesareboth awareof and value the diversityof theircommunities and work to promoteand maintainit (Nyden et al. 1998), and they are likely
to have moretolerantracialattitudes.Clearlythen,futureresearchshouldincrease
andexpandanalysesof the "substantialandincreasingminorityof neighborhoods
that are currentlyintegratedand likely to stay that way for many years" (Ellen
2000, p. 176). The centralconsiderationof Hispanicswill be crucialhere. Given
boththe size andheterogeneityof this group,theirresidentialtrajectorywill have a
large effect on overall residentialpatterns.Theirability to integrate-particularly
those who are phenotypicallyblack-may introducenew options for increasing
the residentialintegrationof non-Hispanicblacks.
In the dawnof the new millennium,a color line more complex thanthe one Du
Bois describedcontinuesto separateourneighborhoods,maintainingourtendency
"to see commonlythe worst of each other"(Du Bois 1990, p. 121) and thwarting
the upward social mobility of a substantialportion of our population. Recent
efforts to understandthe causes of persistingresidentialsegregationhighlightthe
complexity of our emergingmultiethnicworld at the same time that they remind
us, matter-of-factly,that race still matters.As the dominantgroup, whites have
the luxury of living in relatively affluent,safe neighborhoodswith high-quality
schools andservices,even whentheirown financialresourcesarelimited.Although
recentimmigrantsmay be initiallydisadvantagedby low socioeconomicstatusand
limitedEnglishproficiency,theycan be assuredof graduallymakingtheirway into
neighborhoodscomparableto those of whites. As has been the case for much of
our history,however,groups racially defined as black continue to face profound
barriersto theirquest for the Americandream.
The agendafor both social science and public policy should also include the
articulationof policy responsesthat are both economically feasible and likely to
have wide public appeal.Yinger (1995) offers a set of responses of this type that
202
CHARLES
involve attackingracial disparitiesthroughpolicies that address social and economic outcomes "for which the minority-whitedisparitiesare greatest"but are
availableto all qualifiedapplicantsregardlessof race. Programsthat supportand
encouragelow-income homeownershipand/orassist public schools in poor communitiesaregood examplesof this. Moreover,given the largenumberof minorities
and the increasingnumberof whites who arewilling to enterintegratedcommunities, programsthatsupportstableintegrationat all levels of social class shouldalso
be pursued.This could include(a) the expansionof Gautreaux-typeprogramsas an
alternativeto traditionalpublic housing programs,(b) aggressivepublic relations
campaignsandcommunitybettermentprojectsthatpromotethe generalattractiveness of integratedneighborhoods,and(c) affirmativemarketingandpro-integrative
mortgageincentivesthatencourageblacksto enterpredominantlywhite areasand
whites to enterraciallymixed neighborhoods(Ellen 2000, Yinger 1995).
The past three decades have witnessed meaningful improvementin whites'
racialattitudesandunparalleledexpansionof the blackmiddleclass. Nonetheless,
black-white segregationremains so extreme and its consequences so severe that
Denton (1994, p. 74) forcefully concluded"[w]hateverwe are now doing to combat residentialsegregationis not nearlyenough and in manycases is not working
at all" (see also Glazer 1980, Massey & Denton 1993, Yinger 1995). In places
where Hispanics are heavily concentrated,they may soon confront similar circumstances.We have learneda greatdeal aboutthe dynamicsof racialresidential
segregationduringthis period and documentedsignificantdeclines in the degree
of residentialseparation.Continuedimprovementis crucialif we areto realizeour
full nationalpotential,and futureresearchshouldadvancethe achievementof this
most importantgoal.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authorwishes to thankRichardD. Alba, LawrenceD. Bobo, ReynoldsFarley,
and Douglas S. Massey for their insightfulcomments.The authoralso wishes to
thankKimberlyTorresandJessicaWelburnfor theirinvaluableresearchassistance.
The Annual Reviewof Sociologyis online at http://soc.annualreviews.org
CITED
LITERATURE
on two
Alba RD, DentonNA, LeungSJ, LoganJR. AlbaRD, LoganJR. 1991.Variations
1995.Neighborhood
themes:racialandethnicpatternsin the atchangeunderthe conditionsof massimmigration:
the New York
residence.Demogratainmentof suburban
City region, 1970-1990. Int. Migr Rev.
phy28:431-53
31(3):625-56
AlbaRD,LoganJR.1992.Analyzinglocational
constructing
reAlba RD, Logan JR. 1993. Minorityproxattainments:
individual-level
imity to whitesin suburbs:an individual- gressionmodelsusingaggregate
data.Sociol.
level analysisof segregation.
MethodsRes.20:367-97
Am.J. Sociol.
AlbaRD, LoganJR,BellairPE. 1994.Living
98(6):1388-427
DYNAMICSOF RESIDENTIALSEGREGATION
with crime: the implicationsof racial/ethnic
differencesin suburbanlocation.Soc. Forces
73(2):395-434
Alba RD, Logan JR, Stults BJ. 2000a. The
changing neighborhoodcontexts of the immigrantmetropolis.Soc. Forces 79(2):587621
Alba RD, LoganJR,StultsBJ. 2000b. How segregatedaremiddle-classAfricanAmericans?
Soc. Probl. 47(4):543-58
Alba RD, Logan JR, Stults BJ, Marzan G,
ZhangW. 1999.Immigrantgroupsin the suband
urbs:a reexaminationof suburbanization
spatialassimilation.Am.Sociol. Rev.64:44660
AndersonE. 1990.Streetwise:Race, Class, and
Change in an Urban Community.Chicago:
Univ. Chicago Press
AndersonE. 1999. Codeof the Street:Decency,
Violence,andtheMoralLifeof theInnerCity.
New York:Norton
BertrandM, MullainathanS. 2002. Are Emily
and BrendanMoreEmployablethanLakisha
and Jamal? A Field Experimenton Labor
MarketDiscrimination
Blumer H. 1958. Race prejudiceas a sense of
groupposition.Pacific Soc. Rev. 1(1):1-7
Bobo L. 1989. Keeping the linchpin in place:
testing the multiple sources of oppositionto
residentialintegration.Int.Rev.Soc. Psychol.
2(3):305-23
Bobo L. 1999. Prejudice as group position:
micro-foundations of a sociological approach to racism and race relations.J. Soc.
Issues 55(3):445-72
Bobo L, ZubrinskyC. 1996. Attitudestoward
residentialintegration:perceived status differences, merein-grouppreference,or racial
prejudice?Soc. Forces74(3):883-909
Bok D. 1996. The State of the Nation: Governmentand the Questfor a Better Society.
Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniv. Press
Carr JH, Megbolugbe IF. 1993. The Federal
Reserve Bank of Boston study on mortgage
lending revisited.J. Housing Res. 4(2):277313
Caskey J. 1992. Bank representationin lowincome and minority urban communities.
203
Work. Pap., Res. Div. Fed. Reserve Bank
KansasCity
Charles CZ. 2000. Neighborhood racialcomposition preferences: evidence from a
multiethnic metropolis. Soc. Probl. 47(3):
379-407
CharlesCZ. 2001a. Socioeconomic status and
segregation:African Americans,Hispanics,
andAsiansin Los Angeles. In Problemof the
Century:Racial Stratificationin the United
States, ed. E Andersen,DS Massey,pp. 27189. New York:Russell Sage
Charles CZ. 2001b. Processes of residential
segregation.In Urban Inequality:Evidence
FromFour Cities, ed. A O'Connor,C Tilly,
L Bobo, pp. 217-71. New York: Russell
Sage
Charles CZ. 2002. Comfort zones: immigration, assimilation, and the neighborhood
racial-compositionpreferences of Latinos
and Asians. Paperpresentedat Annu. Meet.
Amer. Soc. Assoc., Chicago
Clark WAV. 1986. Residential segregationin
Americancities: a review andinterpretation.
Popul.Res. Policy Rev. 5:95-127
Clark WAV. 1988. Understandingresidential
segregationin American cities: interpreting
the evidence, a reply to Galster.Popul. Res.
Policy Rev. 8:193-97
ClarkWAV.1992. Residentialpreferencesand
residentialchoices in a multiethniccontext.
Demography29(3):451-66
ClarkWAV.2002. Ethnic preferencesand ethnic perceptionsin multi-ethnicsettings. Urban Geogr.23(3):237-56
CrowderKD. 1999. Residentialsegregationof
West Indians in the New York/NewJersey
metropolitanareas:the roles of race andethnicity.Int. Migr.Rev. 33:79-113
CutlerDM, GlaeserEL. 1997. Are ghettosgood
or bad? Q. J. Econ. 112(3):827-72
CutlerDM, GlaeserEL, VigdorJL. 1999. The
rise and decline of the American ghetto. J.
Polit. Econ. 107(3):455-506
DardenJT. 1995. Black residentialsegregation
since the 1948 Shelley v. Kraemerdecision.
J. Black Stud.25(6):680-91
DedmanB. 1988. The color of money.Atlanta
204
CHARLES
Journal,Atlanta Journal Constitution,May
1-4
DedmanB. 1989. Blacks turneddownfor home
loans fromS&Lstwice as often as whites.Atlanta Journal,AtlantaJournal Constitution,
Jan. 22
Denton NA. 1994. Are AfricanAmericansstill
hypersegregated?In ResidentialApartheid:
TheAmericanLegacy, ed. R Bullard,C Lee,
JE Grigsby,pp. 49-79. Los Angeles: UCLA
Cent. Afr. Am. Stud.
DentonNA, Massey DS. 1988. Residentialsegregationof blacks, Hispanics,and Asians by
socioeconomic status and generation. Soc.
Sci. Q. 69:797-817
Denton NA, Massey DS. 1989. Racial identity among CaribbeanHispanics: the effect
of double minoritystatuson residentialsegregation.Am. Sociol. Rev. 54:790-808
Du Bois WEB. 1990 (1903). TheSouls of Black
Folk: Essays and Sketches.New York:Vintage Books
Edmonston B, Passel JS. 1992. Immigration
andimmigrantgenerationsin populationprojections. Int. J. Forecast.8(3):459-76
Ellen IG. 2000. SharingAmerica's Neighborhoods: The Prospectsfor Stable Racial Integration. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniv.
Press
EmersonMO, YanceyG, Chai KJ. 2001. Does
race matter in residential segregation?Exploring the preferencesof white Americans.
Am. Sociol. Rev. 66(6):922-35
Farley R. 1996a. The New American Reality:
How WeAre, How WeGot There,WhereWe
Are Going. New York:Russell Sage
FarleyR. 1996b.Racialdifferencesin the search
for housing: Do whites and blacks use the
same techniquesto find housing?Hous. Policy Debate 7:36786
Farley R, Fielding EL, Krysan M. 1997. The
residentialpreferencesof whites andblacks:
a four-metropolisanalysis.Hous. Policy Debate 8(4):763-800
FarleyR, Frey WH. 1994. Changesin the segregation of whites from blacks during the
1980s: small steps towarda more integrated
society.Am. Sociol. Rev. 59:23-45
FarleyR, SchumanH, Bianchi S, ColasantoD,
HatchettS. 1978. Chocolatecity, vanillasuburbs:Will the trendtowardracially separate
communitiescontinue?Soc. Sci. Res. 7:31944
FarleyR, SteehC, JacksonT, KrysanM, Reeves
K. 1993. Continuedracial segregationin detroit:chocolatecity, vanillasuburbs.J. Hous.
Res. 4(1):1-38
FarleyR, SteehC, KrysanM, JacksonT,Reeves
K. 1994. Stereotypesandsegregation:neighborhoodsin the Detroit area.Am. J. Sociol.
100(3):750-80
FlippenCA. 2001. Residentialsegregationand
minority home ownership. Soc. Sci. Res.
30(3):337-62
Frey WH, Farley R. 1993. Latino, Asian, and
black segregationin multi-ethnic metro areas:findingsfromthe 1990 Census.Res. Rep.
Popul. Stud. Cent., Univ. Mich.
Galster GC. 1988. Residential segregation in
American cities: a contraryreview. Popul.
Res. Policy Rev.7:93-112
Galster GC. 1990. Racial steering in housing
marketsduringthe 1980s: a review of the audit evidence. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 9:165-75
GalsterGC. 1991. Black suburbanization:Has
it changedthe relativelocation of races? Urban Aff. Q. 26:621-28
GalsterGC. 1992. Researchon discrimination
in housing and mortgage markets: assessment andfuturedirections.Hous. Policy Debate 3(2):639-83
Glazer N. 1980. Race and the suburbs.In The
Workof CharlesAbrams, ed. OH Koenigsberger, S Groak, B Bernstein, pp. 175-80.
Oxford:PergamonPress
Harris DR. 1999. Propertyvalues drop when
blacks move in, because...: racial and socioeconomic determinantsof neighborhood
desirability.Am. Sociol. Rev. 64:461-79
HarrisDR. 2001. Why are whites and blacks
averse to black neighbors? Soc. Sci. Res.
30(1):100-16
HeckmanJJ. 1998. Detectingdiscrimination.J.
Econ. Perspect. 12(2):101-16
Heckman JJ, Siegelman P. 1993. The Urban
Institute Audit Studies: their methods and
DYNAMICSOF RESIDENTIALSEGREGATION
findings.In Clearand ConvincingEvidence:
Measurementof Discriminationin America,
ed. M Fix, RJ Struyk,pp. 187-258, 271-76.
Washington,DC: UrbanInst. Press
Jackman MR, Jackman RW. 1983. Class
Awareness in the United States. Berkeley,
CA: Univ. Calif. Press
JackmanMR, Muha MJ. 1984. Prejudice,tolerance, and attitudestoward ethnic groups.
Soc. Sci. Res. 6:145-69
JacksonWE II. 1994. Discriminationin mortgage lending marketsas rationaleconomic
behavior: theory, evidence, and public policy. In AfricanAmericansand the New Policy Consensus:Retreatof the Liberal State,
ed. ME Lashley, MN Jackson, pp. 157-78.
Westport,CT:GreenwoodPress.
JargowskyPA. 1996. Povertyand Place: Ghettos, Barrios, and the American City. New
York:Russell Sage
JargowskyPA, Bane MJ. 1991. Ghettopoverty
in the United States, 1970-1980. In The Urban Underclass, ed. C Jencks, PE Peterson, pp. 235-73. Washington,DC: Brookings Inst.
Jasso G, Rosenzweig M. 1990. The New Chosen People: Immigrantsin the UnitedStates.
New York:Russell Sage
Jaynes GD, WilliamsRM Jr. 1989. A Common
Destiny: Blacks in AmericanSociety. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press
KirschenmanJ, NeckermanKM. 1991. 'We'd
love to hirethem,but.. .': the meaningof race
for employers.In The UrbanUnderclass,ed.
C Jencks, PE Peterson, pp. 203-32. Washington, DC: BrookingsInst.
Krivo LJ, PetersonRD. 1996. Extremely disadvantagedneighborhoodsand urbancrime.
Soc. Forces 75:619-48
KrysanM. 1998. Privacyandthe expressionof
white racial attitudes:a comparison across
three contexts. Public Opin. Q. 62:506-44
Krysan M. 2002. Whites who say they'd flee:
Who are they, and why would they leave?
Demography39(4):675-96
KrysanM, FarleyR. 2002. The residentialpreferences of blacks:Do they explainpersistent
segregation?Soc. Forces 80:937-80
205
Logan JR. 2001a. Ethnic diversity grows,
neighborhoodintegrationlags behind. Rep.
Lewis Mumford Cent. Comp. Urban Reg.
Res.
Logan JR. 2001b. The new ethnic enclaves
in America's suburbs.Rep. Lewis Mumford
Cent. Comp. UrbanReg. Res.
Logan JR. 2001c. Living separately:segregation rises for children.Rep. Lewis Mumford
Cent. Comp. UrbanReg. Res.
Logan JR, Alba RD. 1993. Locationalreturns
to human capital: minority access to suburban community resources. Demography
30(2):243-68
Logan JR, Alba RD. 1995. Who lives in affluent suburbs?Racial differencesin eleven
metropolitanregions. Sociol. Focus 28(4):
353-64
Logan JR, Alba RD, Leung S-Y. 1996. Minority access to white suburbs:a multiregional
comparison.Soc. Forces 74(3):851-81
Logan JR, Alba RD, Zhang W. 2002. Immigrant enclaves and ethnic communities in
New YorkandLos Angeles. Am.Sociol. Rev.
67:299-322
Logan JR, Schneider M. 1984. Racial segregation and racial change in American suburbs, 1970-1980. Am. J. Sociol. 89(4):87488
Massey DS. 1995. The new immigrationand
ethnicity in the United States. Popul. Dev.
Rev.21(3):631-52
Massey DS, BittermanB. 1985. Explainingthe
paradox of Puerto Rican segregation. Soc.
Forces 64(2):306-31
Massey DS, CondranGA, Denton NA. 1987.
The effect of residentialsegregationon black
social and economic well-being. Soc. Forces
66:29-57
Massey DS, Denton NA. 1985. Spatialassimilation as a socioeconomic outcome.Am. Sociol. Rev.50:94-106
Massey DS, Denton NA. 1987. Trendsin the
residentialsegregationof blacks, Hispanics,
and Asians: 1970-1980. Am. Sociol. Rev.
52(6):802-25
Massey DS, Denton NA. 1989. Hypersegregation in U.S. metropolitanareas: black and
206
CHARLES
Hispanic segregationalong five dimensions.
Demography26(3):373-91
Massey DS, Denton NA. 1993. American
Apartheid:Segregationand theMakingof the
Underclass.Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniv.
Press
Massey DS, Fischer MJ. 1999. Does rising
income bring integration?New results for
blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in 1990. Soc.
Sci. Res. 28:316-26
Massey DS, FischerMJ. 2002. TheLong Term
Consequences of Segregation. Paper presented at Ann. Meet. Popul. Assoc. Am.,
Atlanta
Massey DS, Gross AB, Eggers M. 1991. Segregation, the concentrationof poverty, and
the life chances of individuals.Soc. Sci. Res.
20:397-420
Massey DS, Gross AB, Shibuya K. 1994.
Migration, segregation and the geographic
concentrationof poverty. Am. Sociol. Rev.
59(4):425-45
Massey DS, Lundy G. 2001. Use of black
English and racial discriminationin urban
housing markets:new methodsand findings.
UrbanAff Rev. 36(4):452-69
Metcalf GR. 1988. FairHousing ComesofAge.
New York:Greenwood
Meyer SG. 2000. As Long as TheyDon't Live
Next Door: Segregation and Racial Conflict in AmericanNeighborhoods.New York:
Rowman & Littlefield
MorenoffJD, SampsonRJ 1997. Violent crime
and the spatial dynamics of neighborhood
transition:Chicago, 1970-1990. Soc. Forces
76:31-64
MunnellAH, Tootell GMB, BrowneLE, McEneaneyJ. 1996. Mortgagelendingin Boston:
interpretingHMDA data. Am. Econ. Rev.
86(1):25-53
MyrdalG. 1972 (1944). AnAmericanDilemma:
TheNegroProblemandModernDemocracy.
New York:RandomHouse
Nyden P, LukehartJ, Maly MT, PetermanW,
eds. 1998. Racially and ethnically diverse
urbanneighborhoods.In Cityscape 4(2):128, 261-69. Washington,DC: US Dep. Hous.
UrbanDev.
Oliver ML, Shapiro TM. 1995. Black
Wealth/WhiteWealth:A New Perspectiveon
Racial Inequality.New York:Routledge
OndrichJ, StrickerA, Yinger J. 1998. Do real
estate brokerschoose to discriminate?Evidence from the 1989 housing discrimination
study.South.Econ. J. 64(4):880-902
Patterson 0. 1997. The Ordeal of Integration: Progressand Resentmentin America's
Racial Crisis. Washington,DC: Civitas
Pattillo-McCoyM. 1999. Black Picket Fences:
Privilege and PerilAmong the Black Middle
Class. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press
PortesA, RumbautRG. 1996. ImmigrantAmerica: A Portrait. Berkeley, CA: Univ. Calif.
Press
Purnell T, IdsardiW, Baugh J. 1999. Perceptual and phonetic experimentson American
English dialect identification.J. Lang. Soc.
Psychol. 18(1):10-30
RosenbaumE. 1994. The constraintson minority housing choices, New York City 19781987. Soc. Forces 72(3):725-47
RosenbaumE. 1996. The influence of race on
Hispanic housing choices, New York City,
1978-1987. UrbanAff.Rev. 32(2):217-43
RubinowitzLS, RosenbaumJE. 2000. Crossing the Class and Color Lines: FromPublic
Housing to WhiteSuburbia.Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press
SampsonRJ, Wilson WJ. 1995. Towarda Theory of Race, Crimeand UrbanInequality.In
Crimeand Inequality,ed. J Hagen,RD Peterson, pp. 37-54. Stanford,CA: StanfordUniv.
Press
Schnore LF. 1963. Some correlates of urban
size: a replication.Am. J. Sociol. 69(2):18593
SouthSJ, CrowderKD. 1997a. Residentialmobility betweencities andsuburbs:race,suburbanization,and back-to-the-citymoves. Demography34(4):525-38
South SJ, CrowderKD. 1997b. Escaping distressed neighborhoods:individual, community, and metropolitanareas. Am. J. Sociol.
103(4):1040-84
South SJ, Crowder KD. 1998. Leaving the
'hood: residential mobility between black,
DYNAMICSOF RESIDENTIALSEGREGATION
white, and integratedneighborhoods.Am.
Sociol. Rev.63:17-26
SouthSJ,DeaneGD. 1993. Race andresidential
mobility: individualdeterminantsand structural constraints. Soc. Forces 72(1):14767
Squires GD, Kim S. 1995. Does anybodywho
works here look like me?: mortgagelending,
race, and lender employment. Soc. Sci. Q.
76(4):823-38
Taeuber KE, TaeuberAF. 1965. Negroes in
Cities: Residential Segregationand Neighborhood Change. West Hanover, MA:
Atheneum
ThernstromS, ThernstromA. 1997. America
in Black and White:One Nation, Indivisible.
New York:Simon & Schuster
TimberlakeJM. 2000. Still life in black and
white: effects of racial and class attitudes
on prospectsforresidentialintegrationin Atlanta. Sociol. Inq. 70(4):420-45
TimberlakeJM. 2002. Separate,but how unequal? Ethnicresidentialstratification,1980
to 1990. City Community1(3):251-66
TurnerMA, Ross SL, Galster GC, Yinger J.
2002. Discriminationin metropolitanhousing markets:national results from Phase I
HDS 2000. US Dep. Hous. Urban Dev.,
Washington,DC.
US Natl. Advis. Comm.Civil Disord. 1988. The
KernerReport.New York:PantheonBooks
Venkatesh SA. 2000. American Project: The
Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniv. Press
Villemez WJ. 1980. Race, class, and neighbor-
207
hood: differencesin the residentialreturnon
individualresources.Soc. Forces59(2):41430
WaldingerR, BozorgmehrM. 1996. The making of a multiculturalmetropolis. In Ethnic Los Angeles, ed. R Waldinger,M Bozorgmehr,pp. 3-37. New York:Russell Sage
Found.
WatersMC. 1990. Ethnic Options: Choosing
Identities in America. Berkeley, CA: Univ.
Calif. Press
WatersMC. 1999. BlackIdentities:WestIndian
ImmigrantDreams and AmericanRealities.
New York:Russell Sage Found.
Wilson WJ. 1987. The TrulyDisadvantaged:
The Inner City, the Underclass,and Public
Policy. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press
Wilson WJ. 1996. WhenWorkDisappears: The
Worldof the New Urban Poor. New York:
Knopf
YingerJ. 1993. Auditmethodology:comments.
In Clear and Convincing Evidence: Measurementof Discriminationin America, ed.
M Fix, RJ Struyk,pp. 259-70. Washington,
DC: UrbanInst. Press
Yinger J. 1995. Closed Doors, Opportunities
Lost: The ContinuingCosts of Housing Discrimination.New York:Russell Sage Found.
Yinger J. 1998. Evidence on discrimination
in consumer markets. J. Econ. Perspect.
12(2):23-40
Zubrinsky CL, Bobo L. 1996. Prismatic
metropolis:race and residentialsegregation
in the city of the angels. Soc. Sci. Res.
25:335-74