The dynamics of racial residential segregation.

INTRODUCTION

Sociologists and policymakers have long viewed racial residential segregation as a key aspect of racial inequality, implicated in both intergroup relations and in larger processes of individual and group social mobility. At the dawn of the twentieth century, Du Bois (1903) recognized the importance of neighborhoods--the "physical proximity of home and dwelling-places, the way in which neighborhoods group themselves, and [their] contiguity"--as primary locations for social interaction, lamenting that the "color line" separating black and white neighborhoods caused each to see the worst in the other (1990, pp. 120-21). Indeed, students of racial inequality, from Myrdal (1944) to Taeuber & Taeuber (1965), believed that segregation was a major barrier to equality, asserting that segregation "inhibits the development of informal, neighborly relations," "ensures the segregation of a variety of public and private facilities" (Taeuber & Taeuber 1965, p. 1), and permits prejudice "to be freely vented on Negroes without hurting whites" (Myrdal 1944, p. 618). Moreover, residential segregation "undermines the social and economic well-being" irrespective of personal characteristics (Massey & Denton 1993, pp. 2-3). Whether voluntary or involuntary, living in racially segregated neighborhoods has serious implications for the present and future mobility opportunities of those who are excluded from desirable areas. Where we live affects our proximity to good job opportunities, educational quality, and safety from crime (both as victim and as perpetrator), as well as the quality of our social networks (Jargowsky 1996, Wilson 1987).

By the late 1960s, unrest in urban ghettos across the country brought residential segregation--and its implication in racial inequality--to the public's attention, leading to the now famous conclusion of the Kerner Commission that America was "moving toward two societies, one black, one white--separate and unequal" (U.S. National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders 1988) and the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968. In addition to ending legal housing market discrimination, passage of the Fair Housing Act marked the end of public discussion of residential segregation, as many believed that antidiscrimination legislation was the beginning of the end of residential segregation. With legal barriers to educational, occupational, and residential opportunities removed, blacks could finally achieve full-fledged integration, and social scientists, politicians, and the general public ignored this dimension of the color line for the next two decades (Massey & Denton 1993, Meyer 2000). By the late 1970s, conditions in the nation's urban areas--where the majority of blacks were still concentrated--had declined precipitously. Social scientists scrambled to explain the emergence of a disproportionately black urban underclass, paying little or no attention to persisting residential segregation by race.

In The Truly Disadvantaged (1987), Wilson outlined the most widely accepted theory of urban poverty: Geographically concentrated poverty and the subsequent development of a ghetto underclass resulted from structural changes 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-producing economy saw huge declines in the availability of low-skilled manufacturing jobs that paid enough to support a family; owing to past discrimination, blacks were disproportionately concentrated in these jobs and therefore suffered massive unemployment. Having benefited more substantially from civil rights gains that included affirmative action policies as well as antidiscrimination legislation, Wilson argued, middle- and working-class blacks were able to take advantage of residential opportunities outside of the ghetto. The impact of these events was an "exponential increase" in the now well-known social dislocations associated with sudden and/or long-term increases in joblessness--under- and unemployment, welfare dependence, out-of-wedlock births, and a blatant disregard for the law. The emigration of nonpoor blacks, Wilson argued, removed an important "social buffer," leaving poor blacks in socially isolated communities that lacked material resources, access to jobs and job networks, exposure to conventional role models, and therefore "generate[d] behavior not conducive to good work histories" (Wilson 1987, pp. 56-60). (1)

Massey & Denton (1993) show, however, that without residential segregation, these "structural changes would not have produced the disastrous social and economic outcomes observed in inner cities ... Although rates of black poverty were driven up by the economic dislocations Wilson identifies, it was segregation that confined the increased deprivation to a small number of densely settled, tightly packed, and geographically isolated areas." Retooling existing theories of urban poverty, they argue, resolves unanswered questions regarding the disproportionate representation of blacks and Puerto Ricans in the ranks of the underclass, as well as the concentration of underclass communities in older, larger cities of the Northeast and Midwest. In the largest urban areas, blacks and Puerto Ricans were the only groups to experience extreme residential segregation and steep rises in poverty at the same time, the latter stemming from the fact that areas of black concentration were also hit especially hard by the economic reversals of the 1970s (Massey & Denton 1993, pp. 146-47). (2) Emphasizing the interaction of segregation and rising poverty also furthers our understanding of the inability of nonpoor blacks to escape segregation and its consequences, despite increasing class segregation within black communities (Jargowsky 1996; Massey & Denton 1993, pp. 146-47). Focusing on a black middle-class exodus, they argue, detracts attention from the devastating consequences of residential segregation for all blacks, irrespective of socioeconomic status.

The publication of American Apartheid (Massey & Denton 1993) was singularly influential in shifting public discourse "back to issues of race and racial segregation" as "fundamental to ... the status of black Americans and the origins of the urban underclass." The book argued persuasively that "the missing link" in each of the underclass theories prevalent at the time was "their systematic failure to consider the important role that segregation has played in mediating, exacerbating, and ultimately amplifying the harmful social and economic processes they treat" (Massey & Denton 1993, p. 7). As a result, social scientists have rediscovered racial residential segregation as a constituent factor in persistent racial inequality in the United States. Recent research addresses several key issues, including the following: (a) trends in the residential segregation of racial/ethnic groups, (b) factors that influence the spatial distribution of groups, and (c) the social and economic consequences of segregation.

This review addresses each of these issues. I begin with a summary of trends in the residential segregation of blacks, Hispanics, and Asians from whites since 1980. Despite declines in black-white segregation, blacks remain severely segregated in the majority of U.S. cities. As a result of massive immigration, Hispanic and Asian segregation from whites is on the rise; but except for a small number of cases among Hispanics, both groups still remain only moderately segregated from whites. Following the discussion of trends in segregation, I review recent literature dedicated to understanding the causes of residential segregation. Two broad theoretical perspectives shape this discussion and are indicative of ongoing sociological--indeed, societal--debates regarding the relative importance of race and class in determining social outcomes. The spatial assimilation model posits that objective differences in socioeconomic status and acculturation across racial/ethnic groups are primarily responsible for residential segregation, squarely addressing the issue of social mobility in its suggestion that increased education, occupational prestige, and income will lead to greater racial residential integration. This explanation adequately describes the residential mobility of both phenotypically white Hispanics and of Asians. Alternatively, the place stratification model emphasizes the persistence of prejudice and discrimination--key aspects of intergroup relations--that act to constrain the residential mobility options of disadvantaged groups, including supraindividual, institutional-level forces. (3) Available evidence suggests that this model better characterizes the inability of those who are phenotypically black (both African Americans and black Hispanics) to escape segregation. At first glance, these perspectives may appear oppositional. Upon closer inspection, however, these seemingly oppositional explanations complement one another. Race still matters; however, its relative importance--and that of socioeconomic status--depends on group membership. Finally, I end with a discussion of the consequences of residential segregation, followed by a discussion of the current state of knowledge regarding the dynamics of racial residential segregation, including suggestions and/or efforts to alleviate segregation and its consequences.

TRENDS IN RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION, 1980-2000

Blacks in 16 metropolitan areas were hypersegregated from whites in 1980, exhibiting extreme isolation on at least four of five standard measures of residential distribution (Masse), & Denton 1989). (4) By 1990, that number had nearly doubled:

In 29 U.S. metropolitan areas--containing 40% of the total black population--blacks experienced "extreme, multidimensional, and cumulative residential segregation" (Denton 1994, p. 49). Blacks are unique in 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)

These compositional shifts influence residential segregation in meaningful ways. Isolation is generally low for small groups but is expected to rise with increasing group size even if the group's level of segregation remains constant. Moreover, the larger the relative size of an out-group's population, the greater exposure to that group is likely to be. Both exposure and isolation are influenced by group settlement patterns. Specifically, chain migration patterns common among both Hispanic and Asian immigrants concentrate rapidly growing groups in a small number of metropolitan areas--and within a small number of neighborhoods within an area--increasing their isolation and decreasing exposure to out-groups (Logan 2001a, Massey & Denton 1987).

Table 1 reports black, Hispanic, and Asian segregation from whites (dissimilarity), isolation, and exposure to whites for the 50 largest metropolitan regions in 2000 (and parenthetically, the change between 1980 and 2000). (8) Both Hispanics and Asians show increasing segregation and isolation, along with declining exposure to whites. These patterns are consistent with their rapid population growth, settlement patterns, and declining white population share. Over the same period, blacks show declines in both segregation and isolation; trends in exposure to whites are mixed, but overall reflect a slight increase. These patterns are consistent with the shifts in population composition outlined above and their anticipated effects on spatial distribution. These changes also contributed to declining black isolation: In many instances, Hispanic settlement patterns concentrate them in areas of traditional black settlement, increasing black-Hispanic contact (Alba et al. 1995). (9)

Nearly half of the metro regions experienced declines in black-white segregation of at least 10 percentage points over the 20-year period. (10) Still, the degree of black-white segregation remains extreme (over 60) in 28 regions. More than half of these are Eastern and Midwestern regions, where black-white segregation has been most resistant to change (Farley & Frey 1994, Massey & Denton 1993), and many of the most segregated regions saw little or no change in black-white segregation over the two decades. At the same time, segregation declined enough in some mid-sized regions with sizable black populations to be characterized as moderate (under 50). Areas with the largest declines (15% or more) tend to be multiethnic (an above-average 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 the newer cities of the West and Southwest (Farley & Frey 1994, Frey & Farley 1993, Logan 2001a). Finally, approximately half of the areas show double-digit declines in isolation, although in many cases, exposure to whites either declined or remained constant. Thus, for the 50 regions, black isolation declined by an average of 12%, but exposure to whites increased by only 1%, on average. As indicated previously, the majority of the decline in black isolation is due mainly to their increasing exposure to Hispanics (Alba et al. 1995, Frey & Farley 1993, Logan 2001a).

Trends in Hispanic and Asian segregation are the opposite of those observed for blacks. In most areas, Hispanic-white segregation remains moderate, isolation low, and exposure to whites meaningful, despite explosive population growth. Overall, increases in segregation range from small to moderate. Hispanic-white dissimilarity never exceeds 68 (and only five areas exceed 60, compared to 28 for blacks) and averages a low of 43 in the South and a high of 57 in the East. Isolation increased more substantially, yet the average Hispanic resides in a neighborhood that is between 16% and 42% same-race (compared to the average black person, whose neighborhood is between 18% and 59% same-race). Exposure to whites declined more substantially. Finally, Asians remain the least-segregated nonwhite group. Increases in dissimilarity and isolation (except for the West, where Asians are most concentrated) are generally less than 10% (the average increase for the 50 regions was 3%), and declines in exposure to whites are comparable to those experienced by Hispanics, once again reflecting the rapid population growth of these largely immigrant groups, concentrated settlement patterns, and declining white population share. In contrast to the residential patterns of blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, whites' exposure to minorities increased steadily over the past two decades: In 2000, the minority percentage in the average white person's census tract was a nontrivial 20%, and research by Alba & colleagues (1995) documents sharp declines in the number of all-white neighborhoods since 1970. In short, although segregation persists or increases for minority group members, the average white person experiences modest integration. (11)

Finally, a brief mention of trends in suburban segregation is warranted. (12) In 2000, nearly 60% of Asians, 50% of Hispanics, and 40% of blacks lived in the suburbs, compared to 71% of whites. These percentages represent substantial increases in minority representation; however, they have not been accompanied by meaningful declines in suburban residential segregation. Patterns of suburban segregation mirror those of the larger metropolitan area of which they are a part, indicating that new minority residents are moving to suburbs where coethnics were already present in 1990. Where groups are smallest in number, they are least segregated and least likely to establish suburban enclaves; however, in the regions where the majority of blacks, Hispanics, and Asians live and are, therefore, a larger share of the suburban population, "segregation is higher, more unyielding over time, and minority population growth is more likely to be associated with the creation or intensification of ethnic enclaves" (Logan 2001b). Increasing minority suburbanization within the context of persisting segregation helps to explain the rising economic segregation among both blacks and Hispanics documented by Jargowsky (1996). Minority suburbs--although better off than poor minority neighborhoods--tend to be less affluent, have poorer quality public services and schools, and experience more crime and social disorganization compared to the suburbs that comparable whites reside in (Alba et al. 1994; Logan et al. 2002; Pattillo-McCoy 1999).

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES 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 favorable racial attitudes among whites, and the dramatic expansion of the black middle class. This section summarizes three competing explanations for persisting racial residential segregation that garner the most research attention--objective differences in socioeconomic status, prejudice, and housing-market discrimination--and reviews major research findings circa 1980. Explanations emphasizing group differences in social class status are consistent with the spatial assimilation model, whereas the place stratification model includes explanations placing primacy on persisting prejudice and/or discrimination. Where appropriate, I consider alternative explanations that do not fit neatly into either theoretical perspective.

Spatial Assimilation

Racial group differences in socioeconomic status characteristics are well documented. On average, blacks and Hispanics complete fewer years of school and are concentrated in lower-status occupations, earn less income, and accumulate less wealth compared to whites (Farley 1996a, Oliver & Shapiro 1995). The persistence and severity of these differences lead easily to the conclusion that residential segregation by 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 & Jackman 1983 on class identities as involving lifestyle considerations). This assumption is the basis of the spatial assimilation model, which asserts that individuals convert socioeconomic gains into higher-quality housing, often by leaving ethnic neighborhoods for areas with more whites; for immigrants, it also involves acculturation--the accumulation of time in the United States and English language fluency, It should also be noted that spatial assimilation is influenced by the metropolitan-area characteristics discussed in the previous section (i.e., group size, rates of group population change, and suburbanization) (Alba & Logan 1993, Farley & Frey 1994, Massey & Denton 1985). (13)

SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS DIFFERENCES Tests of this hypothesis dominate segregation research over the past two decades, and findings consistently show that Asians and Hispanics are always substantially less segregated from whites than blacks are. As Asian and Hispanic socioeconomic status improves and generations shift from immigrant- to native-born, segregation from whites declines substantially. Conversely, objective differences in socioeconomic status explain only part of blacks' residential outcomes (Alba & Logan 1993; Denton & Massey 1988; Logan & Alba 1993, 1995; Logan et al. 1996; Massey & Denton 1987, 1993; Massey & Fischer 1999). Moreover, studies distinguishing among white, black, and mixed-race Hispanics find that black and mixed-race Hispanics' residential patterns mirror those of African Americans. The exceptional experience of groups with black skin leads Massey & Denton (1989, Denton & Massey 1989) to conclude that blacks pay a "higher constant penalty" for their race that is not explained by socioeconomic status disadvantage.

Until recently, the bases for these conclusions were aggregate-level analyses, primarily from the Massey-Denton segregation research project that culminated in the publication of American Apartheid. (14) Modeling aggregate-level studies suffer from several potentially important limitations, however. In particular, modeling individual-level processes at the aggregate level (either tract- or metropolitan-area level) risks problems of ecological inference and introduces multicollinearity that limits the number of explanatory measures (Alba & Logan 1993, Massey et al. 1987, see also Massey & Denton 1987). Particularly problematic, homeownership is never included in aggregate-level studies, despite its obvious implications for residential outcomes (Alba & Logan 1993, Charles 2001b, Oliver & Shapiro 1995, Yinger 1995). (15) Finally, these studies measure and/or predict segregation or, less frequently, central-city versus suburban location across metropolitan areas. At least as important, however, is to understand variations in the characteristics of the neighborhoods--both central-city and suburban--where various racial/ethnic groups actually live. For example, suburban blacks tend to live in older, inner suburbs that are less affluent, less white, and experience more crime and social disorganization compared to the suburbs where comparable whites live (Alba et al. 1994, Logan & Schneider 1984, Pattillo-McCoy 1999); thus, not all suburbs axe equal, and aggregate analyses cannot detail these important experiential differences.

Individual-level analyses address these limitations and substantially enhance our …