Declining segregation through the lens of neighborhood quality: Does middle-class and affluent status bring equality?
Introduction
Residential segregation, particularly between blacks and whites, is on the decline. Logan (2011, p. 5) finds that the average black–white index of dissimilarity scores in metropolitan America decreased from 73 in 1980 to 59 in 2010. For Hispanics during the same period, average levels of segregation, which are lower than that between blacks and whites, dropped more minimally from 50 in 1980 to 48 in 2010 (Logan, 2011, p. 11). Suburbs, which have long been associated with prosperous white communities, have seen a far greater representation of minorities (Denton and Gibbons, 2013). In 2010, 51% of blacks lived in suburbs, up from 37% in 1990, and the percentage of Hispanics in suburbs rose to 59% from 47% (Frey, 2011, p. 10). While declines in segregation have been found to be slower in suburbs than in cities (Denton and Gibbons, 2013, Fischer, 2008), these are still promising signs that greater racial integration is taking place.
Whether concurrent trends of declining segregation and the growing presence of minorities in suburbs have translated into better residential conditions for individual minorities, particularly those of middle-class and affluent backgrounds, relative to whites, is not well known. Some scholars argue that economic differences between whites and minorities are directly linked to residential segregation (Clark, 2007, Patterson, 1997, Thernstrom and Thernstrom, 1997). Therefore, declines in segregation should result in more equality in the neighborhood quality between middle- and upper-class minorities and whites. However, existing research on race and class has found that while segregation for middle class minorities has declined, it remains high for blacks (Fischer, 2003, Iceland et al., 2005, Iceland and Wilkes, 2006, Massey and Fischer, 1999). The persistence of prejudices and negative out-group preferences (Charles, 2000, Farley et al., 1994, Krysan and Farley, 2002) as well as discrimination, particularly in the form of racial and ethnic steering, will make minorities more disadvantaged in their residential outcomes, relative to whites, no matter how much the class-status gap is closed between minorities and whites (Massey and Denton, 1993, Massey and Fischer, 1999, Turner et al., 2002).
The lack of research on this topic is surprising given that the disparities in wealth between whites and minorities persist (Conley, 1999, Oliver and Shapiro, 1995). Housing and neighborhood conditions have been found to be key factors influencing housing values, which in turn help explain the wealth differences between householders (Fesselmeyer et al., 2013, Flippen, 2004). In 2009, the median net worth of households with a non-Hispanic white householder was $113,149, almost 20 times the median net worth of households with a black householder ($5677) or Hispanic householder ($6325) (Kochhar et al., 2011, p. 5). Given that black and Hispanic wealth is much more dependent on their residential circumstances, knowing more about the quality of neighborhoods in which middle class or affluent blacks and Hispanics live, especially if we define such class backgrounds as including homeownership, is important as is focusing on those who live in suburbs where homeownership is even greater (Conley, 1999, Kochhar, 2004, Oliver and Shapiro, 1995).
While there is some research that explores the effects of class and socioeconomic status on residential segregation at an aggregate level (Fischer, 2003, Iceland and Wilkes, 2006, Iceland et al., 2005, Massey and Fischer, 1999), to our knowledge, only three quantitative studies exist in the literature that directly examine the locational attainment of middle-class or affluent blacks (Adelman, 2004, Adelman, 2005, Alba et al., 2000). They find that race continues to be important in influencing their residential attainment. Although middle-class blacks have greater shares of whites in their neighborhoods, relative to other blacks, the whites are less affluent than those residing in middle-class white neighborhoods. However, these studies are limited in a number of ways. They do not examine the locational attainment of middle- and upper-class minorities on a national level. The data utilized within these studies are based upon data from the 1990 decennial census or the 1992–1994 MultiCity Study of Urban Inequality, which are about 20 years old (Adelman, 2004, Adelman, 2005, Alba et al., 2000). Neighborhoods within these studies are defined at the census-tract level and not as the characteristics near the person’s housing unit, which potentially underestimates the true extent to which middle-class and affluent minorities experience the negative effects of residential segregation. Finally, these studies do not examine the locational attainment of such well-to-do households in suburbs, which is surprising given that many of these households reside in suburbs as well as the fact that suburban residence is considered the pinnacle of achievement in locational attainment models (Alba and Logan, 1991, Fischer, 2008, Friedman and Rosenbaum, 2007, Logan and Alba, 1993, Massey and Denton, 1985, Massey and Denton, 1988).
In addition to the aforementioned limitations of previous research, almost no research has directly examined the residential outcomes of middle-class or affluent Hispanics and Asians.2 One exception is a study by Logan (2011) that examines the average neighborhood quality of poor, middle income, and affluent whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians using 2005–2009 data from the American Community Survey.3 Logan (2011) finds that well-to-do blacks and Hispanics live in poorer neighborhoods than their white counterparts. While this study updates the older research on this topic and offers a broader focus on non-black minorities, it is limited because it is a descriptive analysis that does not control for other factors that could impact the gap in neighborhood quality between well-to-do whites and minorities, namely educational attainment, housing tenure, and suburban location.
The question that remains is how important are race and ethnicity in predicting middle-class and affluent household locational attainment in the 21st century, given the declines that have occurred in segregation during the past few decades. To address this issue, we conduct bivariate and multivariate analyses of data from the 2009 panel of the American Housing Survey (AHS). The distinct advantages of these data are that they are at the national level, and contain respondents’ reports of the physical conditions of their neighborhoods in terms of the presence of abandoned buildings, buildings with bars on the windows, trash/litter/junk, open spaces within a half a block of their housing unit, how residents rank their neighborhoods, and residents’ perceptions of crime. Such perception-based measures of residential circumstances have been shown to be significantly related to more objective indicators (Elo et al., 2009) and have been linked in explaining variation in individual health outcomes (Chang et al., 2009, Vinikoor-Imlera et al., 2011, Weden et al., 2008). In addition, the AHS includes household reports of their housing values, which is likely to directly reflect the quality of their neighborhoods. Several questions are addressed using these data: (1) Do racial and ethnic differences in neighborhood outcomes exist among middle-class and affluent households?4 (2) To the extent that differences exist, are they smaller in suburbs? (3) If racial and ethnic differences exist, do they disappear when controlling for relevant demographic and socioeconomic factors?
Section snippets
Theoretical background
Two theoretical models have been used in the literature to characterize variation in the residential location of households. The spatial assimilation model identifies residential attainment as one of the key outcomes of the status attainment process. Variation in residential outcomes of households is a function of differences in their acculturation, socioeconomic status, and life cycle factors. The model suggests that on the whole, as minorities achieve upward economic mobility, they will
Hypotheses
Our study focuses on answering three major research questions, which were posed in the introduction. The preceding theoretical discussion suggests the following hypotheses in answering each of these questions.
- (1)
Do racial and ethnic differences in neighborhood outcomes exist among middle-class and affluent households? The spatial assimilation model predicts that few racial and ethnic differences will exist in neighborhood outcomes between well-to-do whites and minorities because of their superior
Data and methods
Our analyses are based on data from the 2009 panel of the American Housing Survey (AHS), a multistage probability sample of approximately 50,000 housing units located throughout the United States that is surveyed every other year. We take advantage of data from the 2009 AHS because these data are recent and contain many indicators of neighborhood quality.
Results
Do racial and ethnic differences in neighborhood outcomes exist among middle-class and affluent households? Table 1 addresses this question, presenting the means for our main dependent variables, focusing on middle-class and affluent households in metropolitan areas, overall, and those in suburbs. With respect to the overall metropolitan results in columns 1 through 4, the data indicate that racial and ethnic differences exist in neighborhood outcomes among middle-class and affluent households.
Discussion and conclusions
The primary goal of this paper was to determine if middle- and upper-class status translates into equal neighborhood conditions for households by their race and ethnicity in an era of declining racial residential segregation. To fulfill this overarching goal, the analysis focused on answering three main questions. First, did racial and ethnic differences in neighborhood outcomes exist among middle-class and affluent households? Consistent with expectations derived under the place stratification
Acknowledgments
Support for this research was provided by a Grant to the Center for Social and Demographic Analysis at the University at Albany from NICHD (R24 HD044943).
References (71)
- et al.
Race and the value of owner-occupied housing, 1940–1990
Reg. Sci. Urban Econ.
(2003) - et al.
Changes in the white–black house value distribution gap from 1997 to 2005
Reg. Sci. Urban Econ.
(2013) - et al.
Does suburban residence mean better neighborhood conditions for all households? Assessing the influence of nativity status and race/ethnicity
Soc. Sci. Res.
(2007) - et al.
Class differences in African American residential patterns in U.S. metropolitan areas: 1990–2000
Soc. Sci. Res.
(2005) - et al.
Does rising income bring integration? New results for Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in 1980
Soc. Sci. Res.
(1999) - et al.
Subjective and objective neighborhood characteristics and adult health
Soc. Sci. Med.
(2008) Neighborhood opportunities, race, and class: the black middle class and residential segregation
City Commun.
(2004)The roles of race, class, and residential preferences in the neighborhood racial composition of middle-class blacks and whites
Soc. Sci. Quart.
(2005)- et al.
Variation on two themes: racial and ethnic patterns in attainment of suburban residence
Demography
(1991) - et al.
Minority proximity to whites in suburbs: an individual-level analysis of segregation
Am. J. Sociol.
(1993)
Immigrant groups in the suburbs: a reexamination of suburbanization and spatial assimilation
Am. Sociol. Rev.
How segregated are middle-class African Americans?
Soc. Probl.
High-priced home lending and the 2005 HMDA data
Fed. Reserve Bull.
Attitudes on residential integration: perceived status differences, mere in-group preference, or racial prejudice
Soc. Forces
Delayed spatial assimilation: multigenerational incorporation of the Mexican-origin population in Los Angeles
City Commun.
Neighborhood patterns of subprime lending: evidence from disparate cities
Hous. Policy Debate
Neighborhood racial isolation, disorder, and obesity
Soc. Forces
Neighborhood racial-composition preferences: evidence from a multiethnic metropolis
Soc. Probl.
Race, class and place. Evaluating mobility outcomes for African Americans
Urban Aff. Rev.
Being Black, Living in the Red: Race, Wealth, and Social Policy in America
Middle-class Latino identity: building a theoretical and conceptual framework
Sociol. Compass
’Not Your Father’s Suburb…’ 21st century suburban demography: increasing diversity yet lingering exclusion
Perceptions of neighborhood disorder: the role of individual and neighborhood characteristics
Soc. Sci. Quart.
Stereotypes and segregation: neighborhoods in the Detroit area
Am. J. Sociol.
The relative importance of class and race in determining residential outcomes in U.S. urban areas, 1970–2000
Urban Aff. Rev.
Shifting geographies: examining the role of suburbanization in blacks’ declining segregation
Urban Aff. Rev.
Unequal returns to housing investments? A study of real housing appreciation among black, white, and Hispanic households
Soc. Forces
Melting Pot Cities and Suburbs: Racial and Ethnic Change in Metro America in the 2000s
Once the American Dream: Inner-Ring Suburbs of the Metropolitan United States
Suburban neighborhood poverty in U.S. metropolitan areas in 2000
City Commun.
Hispanic segregation in metropolitan America: exploring the multiple forms of spatial assimilation
Am. Sociol. Rev.
Does socioeconomic status matter? Race, class, and residential segregation
Soc. Probl.
The Re-Emergence of Concentrated Poverty: Metropolitan Trends in the 2000s
The Wealth of Hispanics Households: 1996–2000
Cited by (15)
Associations between cumulative neighborhood deprivation, long-term mobility trajectories, and gestational weight gain
2018, Health and PlaceCitation Excerpt :One potential explanation for racial/ethnic differences in associations between neighborhood environment and excessive GWG may lie in racial/ethnic differences in neighborhood composition. Due to social processes that lead to race-based spatial stratification of residential environments in the US, neighborhoods that Black and Latina women move through over time differ from their white counterparts (Friedman et al., 2014). For example, the wealthier neighborhoods that Black women live in may still lack key resources and health facilitators that are present in white neighborhoods of equivalent economic status (Friedman et al., 2014).
The persistence of white flight in middle-class suburbia
2018, Social Science ResearchCitation Excerpt :In this regard, white flight remains complicit in residential segregation only to the extent that minority neighborhoods possess high levels of disadvantage that otherwise prevent the integration of white and non-white residents (Harris, 1999, 2001). Yet today, the movement of non-white groups into middle-class suburban neighborhoods has significantly attenuated the inequalities in neighborhood quality traditionally found between white and non-white households (Farrell and Firebaugh, 2016; Friedman et al., 2014). Indeed, minority suburbanization has represented a powerful force beginning to erode the socioeconomic disparities long driven by the disproportionate concentration of minorities in poor urban neighborhoods (Wilson, 1987; Sampson, 2012; Sharkey, 2013).
Is immigrant neighborhood inequality less pronounced in suburban areas?
2016, Social Science ResearchCitation Excerpt :Similarly, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Mexicans experience high levels of neighborhood inequality that are at best marginally improved in the suburbs. This latter point echoes previous research which cautions against interpreting Hispanic suburbanization as a de facto indicator of spatial assimilation (Friedman et al. 2014; Lichter et al. 2010). Moreover, many Latin American immigrants reside in overcrowded housing (Scott, 2015; Hall and Greenman, 2013), so a tract-based focus like ours may miss important forms of suburban residential inequality occurring at the household level.
The composition and stability of demographic integration through gentrification
2022, Journal of Race Ethnicity and the City
- 1
Samantha Friedman and Joseph Gibbons contributed equally to this manuscript.