Does Spatial Assimilation Work for Black Immigrants in the US?

Urban Studies http://usj.sagepub.com/

Does Spatial Assimilation Work for Black Immigrants in the US? Lance Freeman Urban Stud 2002 39: 1983 DOI: 10.1080/0042098022000011326 The online version of this article can be found at: http://usj.sagepub.com/content/39/11/1983

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: Urban Studies Journal Foundation

Additional services and information for Urban Studies can be found at: Email Alerts: http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://usj.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://usj.sagepub.com/content/39/11/1983.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Oct 1, 2002 What is This?

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at COLUMBIA UNIV on April 9, 2014

Urban Studies, Vol. 39, No. 11, 1983– 2003, 2002

Does Spatial Assimilation Work for Black Immigrants in the US? Lance Freeman [Paper rst received, November 2000; in nal form, March 2002]

Summary. This paper uses the following theoretical perspectives to explain the segregation patterns of foreign Blacks in the US: the spatial assimilation model, which posits that immigrants will achieve greater residential proximity to native Whites as they acculturate and become upwardly mobile; the primacy of race model that sees race as trumping all other characteristics in determining spatial relations with Whites and Blacks; and, the ethnic identity model that suggests foreign Blacks’ image as a ‘model minority’ will allow them to differentiate themselves from native Blacks and achieve a relative degree of integration with Whites. The results of this study are most consistent with the primacy of race model. Regardless of their degree of acculturation, Black immigrants were highly segregated from Whites but only modestly so from native Blacks.

1. Introduction Because place of residence is an important determinant of quality of life, immigrants’ access to mainstream neighbourhoods is a crucial component of the assimilation process. Referred to as spatial assimilation by urban sociologists, this movement out of the ethnic enclave occurs as immigrants and their descendants improve their socioeconomic status and become acculturated to US society, thus reducing the social distance between themselves and natives and consequently the spatial distance as well (Duncan and Lieberson, 1959; Massey, 1985; Warner and Srole, 1945). Although scholars have studied spatial assimilation among earlier European immigrants (Bleda, 1978; Duncan and Lieberson, 1959; Guest and Weed, 1976; Uyeki, 1980) and more recent immigrants from Latin

America and Asia (Alba and Logan, 1993; Farley and Frey, 1993; Freeman, 2000; Gross and Massey, 1991; Logan et al., 1996a; Massey and Denton, 1985, 1988b; Massey and Fong, 1990; Massey and Mullan, 1984; White et al., 1993; Zhou and Logan, 1991), Black immigrants residing in the US are an important group of immigrants whose spatial relations to Americans have drawn little attention from scholars.1 For example, two of the top ve sources of immigrants in New York City during the rst half of the 1990s are countries dominated by Blacks (New York City Department of City Planning, 1999). Alba et al. (1999) examined the process of suburbanisation among West Indians, but not access to White neighbourhoods . Crowder and Tedrow (2001) examined the residential patterns of West Indians in New

Lance Freeman is in the Urban Planning Department, Graduate School of Architecture Planning and Preservation, Columbia University, 400 Avery Hall, 1172 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027, USA. Fax: 212 864 0410. E-mail: [email protected] . 0042-098 0 Print/1360-063 X On-line/02/111983-21 Ó 2002 The Editors of Urban Studies Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at COLUMBIA UNIV on April 9, 2014 DOI: 10.1080/004209802200001132 6

1984

LANCE FREEMAN

York City, but limitations in the data they used prevented them from testing key tenets of spatial assimilation theory—namely, whether socioeconomic status translates into increased proximity to Whites for Black immigrants. The spatial assimilation process among Black immigrants is of great interest because, as Blacks, they may face the same barriers that have prevented African– Americans from spatially assimilating; yet, as immigrants, they are likely to share the same aspirations as other immigrants, for them and their offspring to move into the American mainstream. Black immigrants thus offer a natural case study for assessing the relative importance of race compared to ethnicity in determining spatial relations in US society. 2. Theoretical Framework This research draws on three schools of thought to explain spatial assimilation among Black immigrants. The rst is the traditional spatial assimilation model that describes how immigrants move into the dominant culture of US society. The second and third schools, which I refer to as the primacy of race and ethnic identity perspectives, describe whether Black immigrant spatial assimilation is likely to occur into native White or AfricanAmerican communities. 2.1 Spatial Assimilation The central tenet of the spatial assimilation model is that the spatial distance between immigrants and natives re ects the social distance between the two. Recent immigrants, who may be unfamiliar with the language, ways and mores of their new home, form enclaves to take advantage of social, cultural and employment networks (Massey, 1985). The ethnic enclave will serve to attract other immigrants sharing the same ethnicity. At the same time, natives are likely to ee and avoid areas experiencing an ethnic invasion. Given that recent immigrants are likely to be poorer and with foreign cultural habits, natives will move away rather than

share residential space with them. As immigrants move up the socioeconomic ladder and become more acculturated to US society, they have less of a need to maintain their immigrant-based networks and may nd it necessary to move out of the ethnic enclave to gain access to better housing, schools and amenities which are more likely to be found in majority neighbourhoods . The immigrants’ increase in socioeconomic status reduces their social distance from natives, thus reducing native ight from neighbourhoods they enter. Spatial assimilation theory therefore suggests that second-generation immigrants, those more acculturated to US norms, and those with higher socioeconomic status will integrate into Native-American neighbourhoods (Lieberson, 1963; Massey, 1985). The evidence compiled thus far by social scientists on ethnic and immigrant assimilation generally con rms the predictions of spatial assimilation theory. Residential segregation from Whites for Asians and Latinos tends to decline as socioeconomic status and acculturation to US society increase (Alba and Logan, 1993; Clark and Ware, 1997; Freeman, 2000; Gross and Massey, 1991; Logan et al., 1996a; Massey and Denton, 1988b; Massey and Mullan, 1984; White et al., 1993; Zhou and Logan, 1991). Earlier work by Lieberson (1963) showed that the acculturation of foreign-born Whites was negatively associated with segregation from native Whites, as spatial assimilation theory would predict. Although the assimilation model and its spatial variant have proved adept at predicting social outcomes for most immigrants, especially those arriving in the early 20th century, there are noticeable cases where the model’s predictions appear to be off the mark. Rather than a smooth transition into the mainstream, many immigrants and their second-generation offspring nd their paths blocked by various obstacles such as a lack of employment opportunities and racial discrimination. Portes (Portes and Rumbaut, 2001) and his colleagues refer to this as segmented assimilation. The obstacle of race apparently explains


SPATIAL ASSIMILATION IN THE US?

why some immigrant groups not only experience downward mobility but fail to assimilate spatially as well. Puerto Ricans (who ironically are US citizens), for example, experience levels of segregation from Whites that declines little with rising socioeconomic status and, as of 1970 at least, foreign-born Puerto Ricans were just as segregated from Whites as native Puerto Ricans. Furthermore, with the exception of Dominicans, Puerto Ricans are generally more segregated from Whites than other Latinos (Freeman, 1999; Jackson, 1981; Kantrowitz, 1973; Massey and Bitterman, 1985). This paradox of Puerto Rican segregation has been attributed in part to their substantial African heritage (Massey and Bitterman, 1985). 2.2 The Primacy of Race The anomalous pattern of Puerto Rican segregation due to their African heritage is consistent with the spatial assimilation’s model relative inef cacy in explaining the segregation patterns of African-Americans. Although the migration of African-Americans from the south to the urban centres of the north during the Great Migration in some ways mirrored the immigration of Europeans to these same cities, their experiences were remarkably different. African-Americans experienced signi cantly higher levels of segregation when they migrated to the cities than European immigrants did at any time (Massey and Denton, 1993). AfricanAmericans continue to be more segregated than immigrants from Asia and Latin America (Massey and Denton, 1988b; Farley and Frey, 1993). In fact, as of 1980, AfricanAmericans were substantially more segregated from Whites than foreign-born Latinos or Asians (Massey and Denton, 1988b). In addition, African-American segregation from Whites generally declines only modestly or not at all with rising socioeconomic status (Clark and Ware, 1997; Darden and Kamel, 2000; J. Farley, 1995; R. Farley, 1990; Farley et al., 1994; Freeman, 2000; Gross and Massey, 1991; Massey and Denton, 1985; Massey and Denton, 1988b; Massey and

1985

Mullan, 1984). Moreover, middle-class African-Americans have been found to live in neighbourhoods with higher poverty rates, more crime and more dilapidated housing than similarly situated Asians, Latinos or Whites (Massey et al., 1987; Massey and Fong, 1990; Logan et al., 1996b). One might suspect that, as the only group to have experienced slavery and to be brought to the US involuntarily, AfricanAmericans might be more ambivalent than other minorities about assimilating into US society. This ambivalence could manifest itself into preferences for less residential contact with Whites and, indeed, some evidence suggests that African-Americans have lower preferences for such contact (Bobo and Zubrinsky, 1996; Freeman, 2000). But Freeman (2000) also shows that, even after controlling for differences in preferences for residential integration, African-Americans still have substantially less residential integration with Whites than similarly situated Asians or Latinos. Instead of spatial assimilation, what I coin the primacy of race model explains AfricanAmerican residential patterns. This model sees Black race as a ‘master’ trait that will trump other traits in determining social outcomes like segregation. Crowder and Tedrow’s (2001) analysis of West Indian residential patterns is strongly suggestive of how the race of Black immigrants may in uence how they are spatially incorporated into US neighbourhoods . In this analysis, the degree of segregation between West Indians and African-Americans was much lower than between West Indians and any other group, or African-Americans and any other group for that matter. The primacy of race model explains why Dominicans, another Hispanic group with substantial African heritage, are closer spatially to African-Americans than to Whites, a pattern not found among other Hispanics except Puerto Ricans (Freeman, 1999). It also explains why Hispanics who identify themselves as Black are highly segregated from Whites, unlike White Hispanics (Denton and Massey, 1989) and why Black Hispanics appear to have their housing


1986

LANCE FREEMAN

choices constrained in the same manner that African-Americans do (Rosenbaum, 1996). Regardless of Blacks’ ethnicity, therefore, the primacy of race model posits that they will be highly segregated from Whites and spatially close to other Blacks. The primacy of race for Black immigrants. For Black immigrants, their race may also dictate their spatial relations with Whites. Prior to the Civil Rights Movement, race was unquestionably a ‘master’ social characteristic in the US that dictated social outcomes for all Blacks, including those who were immigrants (Kasinitz, 1992). During the rst major wave of Black immigration that came from the West Indies during the 1920s, Black immigrants had little choice but to settle in Harlem among African-Americans (Osofsky, 1971). For these earlier Black immigrants, assimilation meant assimilation into Black America, not White America. Malcolm X, Louis Farrakhan, Stokely Carmichael and Colin Powell are examples of well-known second-generation West Indian immigrants for whom assimilation meant melting into Black America. The continued syncretism of AfricanAmerican and West Indian cultures also suggests that Black immigrants are to a certain extent being incorporated into Black America. For example, Hip-Hop music, a quintessential African-American art form, grew in part out of musical forms popular in Jamaica and transported to the US by Jamaican immigrants (George, 1998). Mary Waters’ (1994) research found a plurality of secondgeneration West Indian immigrants identifying themselves as American Blacks. They also adapted African-Americans’ manner of speech and clothing. If this pattern plays out spatially and race continues to be a master trait, then Black immigrants will assimilate into African-American neighbourhoods . Recent arrivals from the West Indies or Africa may cluster in ethnic enclaves but, as they assimilate into US society, Black immigrants will be restricted to African-American neighbourhoods according to the primacy of race model.

2.3 Ethnic Identity The ethnic identity model posits that ethnicity will play the key role in shaping spatial patterns for second-generation and upwardly mobile Black immigrants. Although the rst wave of Black immigrants had little choice but to reside among native AfricanAmericans, post-1965 Black immigration coincided with the Civil Rights movement and the easing of caste-like racial barriers in the US. The easing of caste-like racial barriers for African-Americans in the US has led some scholars to postulate that race has declined in signi cance as a determinant of life outcomes (Wilson, 1978). According to this view, race is no longer the master trait that determines life outcomes like residential location. If race has declined in importance vis-a`-vis other characteristics such as class and ethnicity, we would expect Black immigrants to distance themselves spatially from American Blacks. Because African-Americans and Black immigrants are of different cultural backgrounds, there should be little spatial proximity between the two. Moreover, the traditional spatial assimilation model assumes the immigrants’ status is lower than that of natives and, consequently, that the immigrants will view spatial assimilation as an improvement in social status for them and their offspring. In the case of AfricanAmericans and the majority of Black immigrants who hail from the West Indies, however, the situation is often reversed. Indeed, this discrepancy has spawned a small cottage industry of studies where scholars seek to explain and measure socioeconomic differences and the sources of these differences between African-Americans and West Indian immigrants. Although still subject to debate, the weight of the evidence suggests that West Indian immigrants do generally tend to outperform native African-Americans on most economic outcomes (Farley and Allen, 1987; Butcher, 1994; Daneshvary and Schwer, 1994; Dodoo, 1997; Kalmijn, 1996; Model, 1995). Whatever the cause of West Indian immi-



grants superior economic performance, with one school pointing to the experience of growing up in a majority Black society and the less debilitating form of slavery experienced by West Indian immigrants (Forsythe, 1976; Sowell, 1978) and the other pointing to selective migration (Butcher, 1994; Model, 1995), both explanations suggest that the attitudinal or cultural outlook of West Indian immigrants differs from that of AfricanAmericans. The putative West Indian immigrant attitudes that value hard work, education and frugality are more consistent with the Protestant work ethic imbued in America than with the putative oppositional culture of African-Americans. Indeed, many rst and even some second-generation West Indian immigrants contrast their ethic of hard work and valuing education with that of what they perceive to be poor work habits among African-Americans, and believe the latter’s de ciencies in these areas explain their lack of success. Mary Waters’ (1994) research also found rst-generation and even some second-generation West Indian immigrants reluctant to assimilate into African-American society because they perceived AfricanAmericans to lack their work ethic and to have lower social status. If West Indian immigrants do indeed have a culture or attitudes that are more consistent with mainstream America than AfricanAmericans, then West Indian immigrants might be viewed as closer in social distance to native Whites than African-Americans. Moreover, if West Indian immigrants are generally of higher socioeconomic status than African-Americans, they may be hesitant to assimilate into African-American society as that would be viewed as a step down. There is also some evidence to suggest that some employers may prefer West Indian immigrants, whom they perceive to be harder working, to African-Americans (Waters, 2000). Assimilation into African-American society thus may be viewed not only as a step down socially, but might have tangible negative economic impacts as well. Not surprisingly, many West Indian immigrants are indeed reluctant to integrate socially into

1987

African-American society. Unlike other immigrants, West Indian immigrants may nd it useful to maintain their ethnic identity even into the second generation. Less clear is how the ethnic identity model might apply to other Black immigrants who do not have West Indian roots, for relatively little has been written on this subject. As immigrants, the self-selection thesis would seem appropriate for this group as well, especially since they would be emigrating from even further distances than would West Indians. Indeed, African immigrants are among the most educated of all immigrants (Butcher, 1994). The cultural argument would also be applicable to immigrants from Africa, for example, since Africans there did not experience a racially based slavery that would damaged their psyche in the ways that scholars such as Sowell claim AfricanAmericans did (Dodoo, 1997). Thus there is reason to think that African immigrants might also be viewed as a type of ‘model minority’ and might also be reluctant to forego their ethnicity and melt into AfricanAmerican culture. In sum, traditional spatial assimilation theory suggests acculturated and higher-status Black immigrants will move out of the ethnic enclave and into American neighbourhoods . But this model may not be applicable to all immigrant groups as the notion of segmented assimilation suggests (Portes and Rumbaut, 2001). Different groups, depending on their racial characteristics or niche in the economy, may not assimilate either culturally or spatially. Thus, other models may be more accurate for certain immigrant groups. The primacy of race model posits that any spatial assimilation that occurs for Black immigrants should occur into African-American neighbourhoods. Moreover, Black immigrants should be relatively integrated with American Blacks according to the primacy of race perspective. In contrast, the ethnic identity model suggests there should be little spatial assimilation into African-American neighbourhoods. Black immigrants would be more likely to assimilate into White neighbourhood s than African-American neighbourhoods .


1988

LANCE FREEMAN

2.4 Hypotheses Based on the above discussion, the traditional spatial assimilation model predicts that (H1) Black immigrants will form ethnic enclaves. (H2) Higher socioeconomic status will translate into more integration with Whites for Black immigrants. And (H3) acculturated Black immigrants will be more closely integrated with Whites than less acculturated Black immigrants. The primacy of race model predicts that (H4) Black immigrants will be residentially integrated with African-Americans. (H5) Acculturation will make little difference in the levels of segregation from Whites experienced by Black immigrants. And (H6) socioeconomic status will make little difference in the levels of segregation from Whites experienced by Black immigrants. The ethnic identity model predicts that (H7) Spatial assimilation will not occur into African-American neighbourhoods. And (H8) Black immigrants will be spatially closer to Whites than AfricanAmericans. 3. Data Social scientists have traditionally used two approaches to analyse spatial relations between groups. One approach is to use data aggregated at the neighbourhood (usually de ned as census tracts) level to calculate city- or metropolitan-wide segregation indices. These indices give an idea of how spatially segregated two groups are from each other. The other commonly used approach is to use individual-level data to estimate locational attainment models. These models inform us of how individual traits are translated into neighbourhood characteristics. Both approaches have their strengths, with

aggregate-level segregation indices giving a better sense of how two groups are related to each other spatially and the individual-level data preferable for assessing how individual characteristics affect spatial outcomes. This research uses both approaches, in part to use triangulation to arrive at a better estimate of the spatial patterns of Black immigrants, and in part to overcome the de ciencies in the data available for both methods. To calculate metropolitan-level segregation indices, Summary Tape File (STF) 4A of the 1990 decennial census was used. The census-based analysis focused on the New York City Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) and the Miami Consolidated Statistical Metropolitan Area because they are the primary ports of entry for West Indians, who form the majority of Black immigrants. The Miami CMSA, which includes the Miami and Fort Lauderdale PMSAs, was used instead of the PMSA because too few Black immigrants reside in the PMSAs to calculate reliable segregation indices for Black immigrant sub-groups. One shortcoming of STF 4A is that it no longer collects information on the birthplace of parents, precluding its use for determining spatial patterns for second-generation immigrants. Black immigrants in STF 4A are de ned as non-Hispanic Blacks who were born outside the US. By default, this means all Blacks born in the US are considered African-American, regardless of where their parents are from. Because the bulk of Black immigration has occurred after 1965, there are relatively few second-generation Black immigrants. Nevertheless, any distinction made between African-Americans and Black immigrants may be understated by the presence of second-generation Black immigrants among African-Americans. The second shortcoming of STF 4A data for our purposes, is the lack of socioeconomic data for Black immigrants. As the theoretical discussion suggests, socioeconomic status should be a key determinant of the spatial assimilation process for Black immigrants. To make up for these shortcomings, the 1999 New York City Housing



and Vacancy Survey (NYCHVS) was used to complement the census-based analysis. The NYCHVS is a survey of approximately 15 000 housing units in New York City that is conducted every 3 years by the Census Bureau for the City of New York. The NYCHVS provides information on the place of birth of the respondent’s parents and indicators that can be used to proxy for socioeconomic status. As with the STF 4A analysis, Black immigrants were selected from the NYCHVS sample by selecting all non-Hispanic Blacks born outside the US. In addition, second-generation Black immigrants were also included in the sample by making use of the place of birth of the parents. All Blacks who had both parents that were immigrants were considered secondgeneration and included in the sample as well. The chief limitations of the NYCHVS are that it is limited to New York City and the smallest spatial unit for which individuallevel data are available is considerably larger than what most would consider a neighbourhood. For con dentiality reasons, the NYCHVS only provides data on what are called sub-borough areas, which are subdivisions of one of New York City’s 5 boroughs. The 55 sub-borough areas typically contain approximately 100 000 persons, much larger than tracts or block-groups that typically contain 4000 and 1000 persons, respectively. Yet there is substantial heterogeneity between these sub-borough areas (Lee, 1996), suggesting that use of the racial composition of the sub-borough area as an independent variable will be informative. 4. Methods The speci c segregation indices that were calculated to test the hypotheses generated by the spatial assimilation, primacy of race and ethnic identity models are described below. To determine if Black immigrants are forming ethnic enclaves, the isolation index was calculated. The isolation index gives an idea of the degree of residential isolation

1989

experienced by the typical Black immigrant. It is the average percentage of a typical Black immigrant’s neighbourhood that is composed of Black immigrants. It ranges from 0, which would indicate that no other Black immigrants live in the typical Black immigrant’s neighbourhood , to 1, which would indicate that the neighbourhood s of Black immigrants were made up exclusively of other Black immigrants on average. Black immigrants hail from different countries with different languages, customs and culture, so it is somewhat mistaken to assume that a clustering of foreign Blacks, who could be of differing ethnicity, really represents an ethnic enclave. The majority of Black immigrants in the US hail from the West Indies, however, and Kasinitz (1992) has shown that the existence of a pan-WestIndian ethnicity is real. This is not surprising given the similar social histories of the West Indian islands and the great deal of crossisland migration that occurs in the West Indies (Waters, 2000). Thus, to the extent that most Black immigrants are from the West Indies, any clustering they exhibit might be viewed as the formation of an ethnic enclave even though many of the immigrants might actually be from different islands. Still, it will be unclear if Black immigrants from Africa, for example, are truly forming ethnic enclaves. The traditional assimilation model suggests that the spatial proximity between Black immigrants and Whites will increase as the former group becomes more acculturated to American society. If it is ethnicity rather than race that is important, Black immigrants should assimilate into predominantly White neighbourhood s and they should be highly segregated from AfricanAmericans. To determine what group Black immigrants are assimilating into, dissimilarity and exposure indices between Black immigrants of differing acculturation status and Whites were calculated. The dissimilarity index is a measure of how evenly distributed two groups are throughout a metropolitan area. The dissimilarity index also ranges from 0,


1990

LANCE FREEMAN

which would mean each tract had the same proportion of each group as the metropolitan area as a whole, to 1, which would mean no tract had members of both groups in it. Higher numbers therefore indicate higher levels of segregation. The exposure index gives an indication of the degree to which the typical Black immigrant is likely to share a neighbourhood with another group. It is the percentage of a typical Black immigrant’s neighbourhood that is composed of the other group, on average. The nal set of segregation indices calculated assesses spatial relations between Black immigrants and African-Americans. If the tenets of the primacy of race model are correct, Black immigrants should be highly segregated from Whites and fairly integrated with African-Americans. The dissimilarity and exposure indices between Black immigrants, and Whites and African-Americans, respectively, test this hypothesis. As noted above, segregation indices were calculated between Black immigrants and Whites, between Black immigrants and African-Americans, and between Black immigrants of differing acculturation status and African-Americans and Whites, respectively. Acculturation was proxied by three indicators: year of entry to the US, citizenship status and English uency. Using year of entry as a proxy for acculturation makes the reasonable assumption that length of time in the US will correspond to learning and adapting to American culture. Citizenship is a good proxy for acculturation because becoming a citizen requires some knowledge of US civics and history, uency in English, at least ve years’ residence in the US and a proactive step to become an of cial American. English uency will not be a good proxy for the many Black immigrants from the West Indies whose native tongue is English. For French-speaking West Indians from countries such as Haiti and Guadeloupe and African immigrants, however, this will be a useful indicator of acculturation. The methods employed here therefore add to the seminal work of Crowder and Tedrow in two ways. First, this study examines Black

immigrants’ residential patterns in two ports of entry, Miami and New York, thereby shedding light on whether spatial processes experienced by Black immigrants vary under different settings. Secondly, use of STF 4A and the NYCHVS data-sets allows for speci cally testing the tenets of spatial assimilation because of the availability of socioeconomic and demographic data by race and immigrant status. Table 1 illustrates the different categories for which segregation indices were calculated and the size of each group in the New York and Miami MSAs. The NYCHVSbased analysis uses individual-level models of locational attainment. These models are regression models that use the immigrant’s neigbourhood characteristics as the dependent variable and the immigrant’s individual characteristics as the independent variables. As spatial relations between Black immigrants and American Whites and Blacks are the focus of this research, the percentage White, percentage African-American and percentage who are Black immigrants (both foreign-born and second-generation) in each Black immigrant’s sub-borough are the dependent variables in the locational attainment models. The independent variables of interest are acculturation and socioeconomic status. The theoretical discussion suggests that the degree of acculturation and socioeconomic status should in uence the degree of spatial contact between natives and immigrants. Available data in the NYCHVS limit proxies for acculturation to year of entry into the US and nativity status. Several measures were used to proxy for socioeconomic status including educational attainment, homeownership, household income and occupational prestige. Household income was used to categorise households into the ve categories illustrated in Table 4. Occupational prestige was measured using Hauser and Warren’s (1997) index of occupational prestige. The distribution was separated into quintiles based on the entire population with each householder assigned a quintile based on their occupational prestige score. The locational attainment models also control for



only English at home other than English at home English very well English well English not well or not at all

a

1.98 3.53

1.5 0.61 0.31

128 366 51 865 26 509 169 094 302 477

19.24

1 644 256

0.79 0.55 0.69 0.64 0.81 0.87 0.65 0.23 0.29

18 48.12 5.52

100

As a percentage of total population

34 945 105 933

44 887 27 486 21 868

406 556

21 850 18 847 19 436 26 030 25 634 29 081a

418 421 1 530 592 140 878

3 192 582

1.09 3.32

1.41 0.86 0.68

12.73

0.68 0.59 0.61 0.82 0.80 0.91a

13.11 47.94 4.41

As a percentage of total population

Miami PMSA Population size

Pre-1975 immigrants collapsed into one category for Miami due to small numbers.

Foreign-born citizens Foreign-born non-citizens

Speaks Speaks Speaks Speaks Speaks

67 321 46 647 59 254 54 567 68 879 74 519 55 881 19 324 25 179

1 543 292 4 112 614 471 571

Native Black population White population Foreign Black population

Year of immigration 1987– 90 1985– 86 1982– 84 1980– 81 1975– 79 1970– 74 1965– 69 1960– 64 before 1959

8 546 846

Total population

Population size

New York PMSA

Table 1. Characteristics of the Black immigrants


1991

1992

LANCE FREEMAN

Table 2. Means of variables used in locational attainment models (percentages) Black immigrant sample

City-wide

22.1 23.7 30.6

47.3 12.6 6.9

Dependent variables Percentage White in sub-borough Percentage African-American in sub-borough Percentage rst or second generation Black immigrant in sub-borough Independent variables Income less than $7000 $7000 – $16 800 $16 801 – $30 000 $30 001 – $49 000 Greater than $49 000

15 24 28 23 10

High-school graduate Some college College graduate

32 24 21

Second occupational category Third occupational category Fourth occupational category Fifth occupational category

29 18 11 11

Immigrated before 1965 Immigrated 1965– 89 Immigrated 1990– 99 Native-born

4 43 17 36

gender, residence in public housing, the presence of children and householder age. A separate tabulation not presented here showed that West Indians are the overwhelming majority of Black immigrants in New York City, making up 81 per cent of the foreign-born non-Hispanic Black population in the US. Table 2 illustrates the variables included in the locational attainment models and provides descriptive statistics on each variable. The rst two rows of the second and third columns of Table 2 give the average percentage of White, percentage of AfricanAmerican and percentage of Black immigrants in Black immigrants’ sub-boroughs and for the city as a whole. Black immigrants live in sub-boroughs that are 23 per cent Black immigrant on average, whereas they only make up 7 per cent of the city-wide population, suggesting that Black immigrants do indeed form enclaves. African-Americans are also heavily overrepresented in Black

immigrants’ neighbourhoods , which is consistent with the tenets of the primacy of race model. In contrast, Whites are underrepresented on average in the sub-boroughs in which Black immigrants reside. More rigorous tests of the theories outlined are presented in the next section. 5. Results The isolation index for Black immigrants in New York is 0.235. This suggests that Black immigrants are indeed forming enclaves, living in census tracts where they are heavily overrepresented. On average, New York’s Black immigrants live in tracts that are 23 per cent Black immigrant, whereas they are only 7 per cent of New York’s population. Table 3 illustrates the degree of segregation in the New York PMSA between all Black immigrants and by citizenship status, and native Blacks and Whites, respectively. In all instances, Black immigrants are sub-


1993


Table 3. Segregation indices for foreign-born Blacks, New York PMSA Dissimilarity indices

Foreign Blacks Foreign Black citizens Foreign Black non-citizens

Exposure indices

Native Blacks

Whites

Native Blacks

Whites

0.414 0.405 0.442

0.766 0.771 0.767

0.401 0.414 0.393

0.143 0.143 0.143

stantially less segregated from native Blacks than they are from Whites. At 0.766, the level of segregation from Whites as measured by the dissimilarity index is higher than 0.6, above which segregation indices are considered high (Kantrowitz, 1973). Moreover, it is higher than the degree of segregation Blacks as a whole experienced in most metropolitan areas in 1990 (Harrison and Weinberg, 1992). In contrast, the degree of segregation between native Blacks and foreign Blacks is modest. The exposure indices, which give an idea of the racial composition of the typical Black immigrant’s neighbourhood, tell much the same story. Despite making up nearly half of the New York metropolitan area’s population, Whites only comprise 14 per cent of the typical Black immigrant’s neighbourhood . Conversely, native Blacks are heavily overrepresented, making up 40 per cent of the typical Black immigrant’s neighbourhood, whereas native Blacks only comprise 18 per cent of the New York metropolitan area’s population. The last two rows of Table 3 show how segregation differs by citizenship status. Contrary to the tenets of the spatial assimilation model, citizenship status makes little difference in the degree of segregation from Whites or native Blacks for that matter.

The isolation index for the Miami CMSA is 0.165, showing that Black immigrants also appear to cluster in enclaves in Miami. On average, they live in neighbourhood s that are 16 per cent Black immigrant, whereas they are 4 per cent of the total population in the Miami metropolitan area. Table 4 shows that, as was the case in New York, in all instances the dissimilarity index between Black immigrants and Whites in Miami is higher than the dissimilarity index between Black immigrants and native Blacks. Although lower than New York, the level of segregation between foreign Blacks and Whites still falls within what is considered the high range. The exposure indices suggest the typical Black immigrant in Miami has a similar number of Whites as native Blacks in his or her neighbourhood . But Table 2 showed that native Blacks are only 14 per cent of the Miami metropolitan area, whereas Whites are 48 per cent. Thus, despite the appearance of modest segregation according to the exposure indices, foreign Blacks are still spatially much closer to native Blacks than Whites, when the respective groups’ overall representation in the population is considered. Parallelling the ndings in New York, citizenship status makes virtually no difference in the levels of segregation

Table 4. Segregation indices for foreign-born Blacks, Miami CMSA Dissimilarity indices

Foreign Blacks Foreign Black citizens Foreign Black non-citizens

Exposure indices

Native Blacks

Whites

Native Blacks

Whites

0.429 0.418 0.448

0.646 0.630 0.658

0.304 0.318 0.300

0.329 0.335 0.327


1994

LANCE FREEMAN

Figure 1. Dissimilarity indices by year of entry, New York.

experienced by Black immigrants. Black immigrant citizens and non-citizens alike are highly segregated from Whites and modestly segregated from native Blacks in the Miami CMSA. Figure 1 presents dissimilarity and exposure indices between foreign Blacks by year of entry, and native Blacks and Whites, respectively, for New York. As the chart makes crystal clear, year of entry makes virtually no difference in the level of segregation from Whites or native Blacks that is experienced by foreign Blacks in the New York metropolitan area. The only exception is the segregation between those foreign Blacks who immigrated prior to 1965 and native Blacks. This change coincides with the pre-1965 immigration from the West Indies. As noted above, pre-1965 immigrants had little opportunity to distance themselves from native Blacks due to the rigid racial caste system that existed in the US at that time. The exposure indices presented in Figure 1 are also consistent with this hypothesis,

with pre-1965 Black immigrants living in neighbourhoods with somewhat more Blacks than their later-arriving brethren. As a determinant of segregation between Whites and foreign Blacks in the New York metropolitan area, however, year of entry is consistently irrelevant. Figure 2 presents the dissimilarity indices between foreign Blacks by year of entry, and native Blacks and Whites, respectively, for Miami. Unfortunately, there were too few Black immigrants in the pre-1975 cohorts to have separate categories for this group, so pre-1975 Black immigrants were collapsed into one category. This precludes testing the pre-1965 hypothesis for Miami. Figure 2 illustrates that acculturation as measured by year of entry into the US tends to result in more spatial contact with native Blacks, but the pattern is less consistent for segregation from Whites. The exposures indices represented by the bottom two lines of Figure 2 illustrate a similar story. More time in the US translates into more native Black neighbours,



1995

Figure 2. Dissimilarity indices by year of entry, Miami.

but an inconsistent pattern as far as White neighbours are concerned. The next measure of acculturation considered is English uency and this is presented in Figure 3. Because English uency is not tabulated separately by place of birth, the segregation indices were calculated only with Whites. Fluency in English, in contrast to other measures of acculturation analysed thus far, does matter as a determinant of segregation from Whites. Those with little facility in the English language are noticeably more segregated from Whites than other Blacks. Blacks who are uent in English, whether immigrant or natives, are highly segregated from Whites, but those with little command of English are even more so. Little command of English translates into greater spatial isolation from Whites. Thus far, the segregation-index-based analysis strongly supports the primacy of race model, weakly supports the spatial as-

similation model, but is inconsistent with the ethnic identity model. Black immigrants were found to be much closer spatially to native Blacks than Whites—a nding consistent with the primacy of race model, but contradicting the predictions of the ethnic identity model. Moreover, the only measure of acculturation that mattered as a determinant of integration was uency in English. As spatial assimilation would predict, however, Black immigrants do appear to be clustering together in enclaves. The next section will illustrate whether the supremacy of the primacy of race model as an explanation of Black immigrant spatial patterns continues. 5.1 Results from the NYCHVS Analysis Table 5 presents the results of the ordinary least squares regressing various socioeconomic, demographic and housing characteristics on the racial composition of the


1996

LANCE FREEMAN

Figure 3. Segregation from Whites by uency in English, New York.

Table 5. Locational attainment models for Black immigrants Percentage White (n 5 1748)

Percentage African-American (n 5 1748)

Percentage Black immigrant (n 5 1748)

Intercept

0.095

0.274

0.298

$7000 – $16 800 $16 801 – $30 000 $30 001 – $49 000 Greater than $49 000

0.017 0.015 0.029 0.017

2 0.003 2 0.009 2 0.007 0.012

0.005 0.005 0.010 0.004

0.028 0.010 0.025*

2 0.029 2 0.041*** 2 0.035***

Independent variables

2

Immigrated before 1965 Immigrated 1965– 89 Immigrated in 1990s Home-owner

0.010

High school graduate Some college College graduate

0.015 0.047*** 0.086***

Second occupational category Third occupational category Fourth occupational category Fifth occupational category R2 F statistic

2

0.001 0.020 0.010 2 0.010 0.045 3.72***

2

0.015*

0.031 0.046*** 0.017 0.002

2 0.017 2 0.035*** 2 0.062*** 0.004 0.002 0.007 0.010 0.028 3.31***

0.006 0.010 0.028

2

2

2

2

2

0.002 0.005 0.010 0.989 0.027 3.2***

*indicates statistically signi cant at the 10 per cent level; **indicates statistically signi cant at the 5 per cent level; ***indicates statistically signi cant at the 1 per cent level.

individual’s sub-borough area. The second column gives the effects of the individual characteristics on the percentage of Whites, whereas the third and fourth columns give the impacts of the regressors on the percent-

age of African-Americans and the percentage of Black immigrants, respectively. The last three rows present the R2, the F-statistic for the statistical signi cance of the entire mode and the sample size. The relatively low R2



values among the models suggest that subborough areas are too large and consequently have too much internal variation in racial composition to model with a great deal of precision. Yet we can still focus on the presence of statistically signi cant variables to test the tenets of the theories laid out in the theoretical framework. Focusing on the second column, which shows how individual characteristics affect foreign Blacks’ proximity to Whites, we see that having attended college and obtaining a college degree are the only independent variables that have a statistically signi cant impact. Both of these impacts are positive, as theory would predict. Year of entry into the US and occupational status have no detectable impact on foreign Blacks’ proximity to Whites. As was the case in the segregationindex-based analysis where measures of acculturation except for English uency made no difference in the amount of segregation experienced by foreign Blacks, the measures of acculturation used here also did not translate into more proximity with Whites. Overall, this model provides some support for the aspect of the traditional spatial assimilation model which suggests that upward social mobility will translate into greater contact with Whites. But the inef cacy of the acculturation variables in explaining proximity to Whites suggests that the notion that acculturation translates into greater contact with Whites, may need rethinking, at least for Black immigrants. The third column presents the results of the model using the percentage of native Blacks in the sub-borough as the dependent variable. The results for the independent variables are almost the mirror opposite of what was found in the percentage White model. All of the education variables are statistically signi cant, but, for proximity to African-Americans, more education has a negative impact. In terms of proximity to African-Americans, year of immigration nativity status does make a difference. Foreignborn Black immigrants who immigrated after 1965 have fewer African-American neighbours than second-generation Black immi-

1997

grants. The results of this model suggest that a sort of reverse spatial assimilation process is at work with regard to Black immigrant spatial proximity to African-Americans. Higher socioeconomic status means less spatial contact with African-Americans. Acculturation, as measured by being a member of the second generation, increases proximity to African-Americans. Interestingly, however, becoming a homeowner translates into an increase in the proportion of African-Americans in a Black immigrant’s sub-borough. This would seem contrary to the notion that upward social mobility means less proximity to AfricanAmericans. But other studies have shown that after controlling for other relevant factors Black home-owners are more isolated from Whites than renters (Alba and Logan, 1993; Freeman, 2000; Logan et al., 1996a). Some scholars attribute this to home-owners having more of a nancial and social investment in their housing and to being more resistant to integration and the neigbourhood decline associated with it than renters (Gould-Ellen, 1997). This last result would be consistent with the primacy of race model. The nal column in Table 5 shows the results of a model estimating locational attainment with the percentage of Black immigrants in the sub-borough as the dependent variable. The only independent variable to have a statistically signi cant relationship is the dummy variable indicating if someone immigrated between 1965 and 1989. Other measures of socioeconomic status and acculturation do not have a statistically signi cant effect. For the purposes of comparison, spatial assimilation models were also estimated for Asian and Latino immigrants using the percentage White as the dependent variable. The results of these models are presented in Table 6. There is one key difference between the Black immigrant’s model and the other groups that lends support to the primacy of race model as the key determinant of spatial outcomes for Black immigrants—the much lower intercept of the Black immigrant model. This implies that Black immigrants


1998

LANCE FREEMAN

Table 6. Locational attainment models for Asians and Latinos Independent variables

Asians (n 5

Intercept

1143)

Latinos (n 5

3489)

0.389

0.360

$7000 – $16 800 $16 801 – $30 000 $30 001 – $49 000 Greater than $49 000

2 0.038* 2 0.058** 2 0.006 2 0.002

2 0.002 2 0.014 0.014 0.054*

Immigrated before 1965 Immigrated 1965– 89 Immigrated in 1990s

0.001 2 0.029 2 0.039**

0.032* 2 0.004 2 0.009

Home-owner

0.009

0.024

High school graduate Some college College graduate

0.042** 0.051** 0.075***

0.040*** 0.076*** 0.137***

Second occupational category Third occupational category Fourth occupational category Fifth occupational category

0.036 0.012 0.087*** 0.058**

R2 F statistic

0.548 4.01***

2 0.017 0.017 0.001 0.012 0.073 9.36***

*indicates statistically signi cant at the 10 per cent level; **indicates statistically signi cant at the 5 per cent level; ***indicates statistically signi cant at the 1 per cent level.

start from a much lower point in achieving proximity to Whites before the impacts of individual characteristics come into play. This echoes other research using spatial assimilation models that found Blacks to have much lower intercepts and, consequently, less success translating their individual characteristics into proximity to Whites (Freeman, 2000). Because the primacy of race model predicts that it is Black status rather than immigrant status that will in uence spatial outcomes for Black immigrants, these ndings can be interpreted as indirectly supporting this thesis. 6. Discussion The evidence obtained from the two sets of analyses allows us to consider how well the spatial assimilation, primacy of race and ethnic identity models explain Black immigrants’ spatial relations with Whites and African-Americans.

6.1 Spatial Assimilation The tenets of the traditional spatial assimilation model posits that immigrants will initially form enclaves but, that, as they move up the socioeconomic ladder and become acculturated to American society, they will gain spatial proximity to neighbourhood s of the dominant group. This process should also play out across generations, as secondgeneration immigrants should have more access to majority-member neighbourhoods than their rst-generation counterparts. In the US, the model implicitly assumes that assimilation will occur into White neighbourhoods. But just as advocates of segmented assimilation theory have called into question the traditional assimilation model for predicting economic cultural outcomes for some immigrants, the evidence presented here suggests that the spatial assimilation model alone will paint an incomplete picture of immigrant spatial processes, especially for



Black immigrants. Hypothesis 1, that Black immigrants would form enclaves, is supported by the fact that Black immigrants do tend to live in neighbourhood s where they are overrepresented. The nding that increased educational attainment translates into more White neighbours for a Black immigrant in New York City is consistent with the second hypothesis. Acculturation, however, as measured by year of entry into the US or citizenship status does not translate into less segregation from Whites, contradicting the third hypothesis on spatial assimilation. However, English uency does translate into greater proximity to Whites. These results, along with the ndings of others in this strand of research, demand a rethinking of the spatial assimilation model as it applies to Blacks. For Blacks, whether foreign-born or native, increases in socioeconomic status do translate into more contact with Whites, as is the case with other minorities. But more contact with Whites does not necessarily translate into much contact with Whites. Prior evidence shows that, although af uent Blacks are less segregated from Whites than their poorer brethren, they are still highly segregated from Whites (Clark and Ware, 1997; Denton and Massey, 1989; J. Farley, 1995; R. Farley, 1990; Freeman, 2000). Because the segregation indices presented here are not tabulated separately by socioeconomic status, we cannot be certain that this holds true for Black immigrants. But the fairly high levels of segregation observed across the acculturation indicators used suggest that separate analyses by socioeconomic status would not result in relatively low levels of segregation being observed for high-status Black immigrants. The second way in which the traditional spatial assimilation model needs rethinking is linked to the lack of a relationship between time of arrival and spatial outcomes. Both the census-based and NYCHVS-based analyses suggest that time of arrival make little difference in spatial outcomes. These results echo the ndings of Alba et al. (1999) who found that recent immigration did not confer

1999

a disadvantage upon Black immigrants in terms of gaining access to suburbia. Moreover, time of arrival was irrelevant in determining access to suburbia for Asian immigrants as well in Alba et al.’s study, a pattern echoed here in the Asian spatial assimilation model. The fact that time of arrival does not appear to be an important factor in the spatial assimilation process for Black immigrants, suggests that acculturation generally does not help them to surmount the barrier of race in achieving residential integration with Whites. Those who lack uency in English do experience somewhat higher levels of segregation from Whites. But even those uent in English and those in the US for a long time are still highly segregated from Whites. This points to the fact that race remains a master trait in determining spatial outcomes. 6.2 Primacy of Race A second consideration of this research is whether race would be found to be a master trait that trumps other traits in determining Black immigrant segregation patterns. For the most part, the primacy of race appears to be evident for Black immigrants. Hypotheses 4 and 5, which predicted that Black immigrants would be relatively integrated with native Blacks and that acculturation would not increase residential contact with Whites, respectively, are consistent with the evidence presented here. Educational attainment does increase residential proximity to Whites, contradicting hypothesis 6, but other measures of socioeconomic status were consistent with this hypothesis. Therefore, the bulk of the evidence shows that race in uences the spatial patterns of Black immigrants in the US. This is interesting in light of some depictions of Black immigrants as a ‘model minority’ who are preferred over AfricanAmericans by employers and are thought by Whites to be easier to get along with than African-Americans (Waters, 2000). One would think that this would translate into greater residential integration between


2000

LANCE FREEMAN

Whites and Black immigrants. But the analyses presented here show that Black immigrants are highly segregated from Whites. The view of Black immigrants as a model minority apparently does not apply to housing. Moreover, the claims of great animosity and social distancing between AfricanAmericans and Black immigrants do not appear to translate into a great deal of spatial distance between the two groups. This research is consistent with a growing body of evidence that has shown that race trumps Hispanic ethnicity (Denton and Massey, 1989; Freeman, 2000) and socioeconomic status in determining spatial outcomes for Blacks. 6.3 Ethnic Identity According to the ethnic identity model, Black immigrants’ racial characteristics should be of little import in determining their spatial patterns. As an ethnic group with a distinct and in many ways different culture, there should be little residential integration between African-Americans and Black immigrants. This would be consistent with Sowell’s claim that “there is virtually no social intimacy between them [AfricanAmericans and Black immigrants]” (Sowell, 1982, p. 97). The ndings presented here are generally inconsistent with the hypotheses of the ethnic identity model. Although hypothesis 7 is partially borne out by the fact that educational attainment is inversely related to proximity to native Blacks, home-ownership had the opposite effect. Moreover, not only are foreign Blacks highly segregated from Whites, they are also much closer spatially to African-Americans than the ethnic identity model would predict—in direct contradiction to hypothesis 8. This is not to say that Black immigrants’ identity is irrelevant in determining their spatial patterns—the evidence of Black immigrant enclaves belies that notion. Rather, it appears that their ethnicity is subsumed under their race in determining segregation patterns. Their model minority status may confer employment advantages on

them vis-a`-vis African-Americans, but it does not translate into greater proximity to Whites. 7. Conclusion This research set out to uncover the residential segregation patterns of Black immigrants in the US. The traditional spatial assimilation model which was developed based on the experiences of earlier European and contemporary Asian and Latino immigrants was used to understand how spatial patterns might play out for Black immigrants. In addition, primacy of race and ethnic identity models were used to take account of Black immigrants’ unique status as immigrants who also happen to be black, the traditional ‘other’ in the US racial hierarchy. The results show that race does indeed in uence the spatial outcomes of Black immigrants. They are much more highly segregated from Whites and closer to African-Americans than would be expected if they were just another immigrant group whose skin colour did not matter. When it comes to residential segregation, race—or, more speci cally, Black race—continues to be the master trait. This supports the contentions of segmented assimilation theorists who posit that race is a major obstacle that will hinder the smooth transition into mainstream society for some immigrants. This research does, however, leave unanswered a number of interesting questions. For example, what would the segregation indices look like for college-educated Black immigrants compared with Black immigrants who are high-school drop-outs? The locational attainment models, while informative, would have undoubtedly been more so if they were based on smaller spatial units such as census tracts or block groups. Would the results then have been similar? Moreover, the segregation-index-based analysis is based on data that are now at least 10 years old. What story will the 2000 census tell us regarding the spatial patterns of Black immigrants? Only subsequent research can answer these questions.



Notes 1. 2.

In this article, Black refers to non-Hispanic Blacks and White to non-Hispanic Whites. Ordinary least squares regression assumes that the dependent variable can assume any value, unlike a percentage which has an upper bound. Models were estimated with the dependent variables transformed into their natural logarithms, but the results were not substantively different, so the results based on the untransformed dependent variables are presented for ease of interpretation.

References ALBA, R. D. and L OGAN, J. R. (1993) Minority proximity to Whites in suburbs: an individuallevel analysis of segregation, American Journal of Sociology, 98, pp. 1388– 1427. ALBA, R.D., LOGAN, J.R. STULTS , B. J. ET AL. (1999) Immigrant groups in the suburbs: a reexamination of suburbanization and spatial assimilation, American Sociological Review, 64, pp. 446 – 460. BLEDA , S. E. (1978) Intergenerational differences in patterns and bases of ethnic residential dissimilarity, Ethnicity, 5, pp. 91– 107. BOBO, L. and ZUBRINSKY, C. L. (1966) Attitudes on residential integration: perceived status differences, mere in-group preferences, or racial prejudice?, Social Forces, 74, pp. 883 – 909. BUTCHER, K. F. (1994) Black immigrants in the U.S.: a comparison with native Black immigrants and other immigrants, Industrial Labor Relations Review, 47, pp. 265 – 284. CLARK, W. A. V. and WARE, J. (1997) Trends in residential segregation by socioeconomic status in California, Urban Affairs Review, 32, pp. 825– 843. CROWDER, K. D. and TEDROW, L.M. (2001) West Indians and the residential landscape of New York, in: N. FONER (Ed.) Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York, pp. 81– 115. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. CULTER , D. M., and GLAESER , E. L. (1997) Are ghettos good or bad?, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(3), pp. 827– 872. DANESHVARY, N. and SCHWER, R. K. (1994) Black immigrants in the U.S. labor market: an earnings analysis, Review of Black Political Economy, 22, pp. 77– 98. DARDEN, J. T. and KAMEL, S. (2000) Black residential segregation in the city and suburbs of Detroit: does socioeconomic status matter?, Journal of Urban Affairs, 22, pp. 1– 13. DENTON, N. A. and MASSEY, D. S. (1989) Racial identity among Caribbean Hispanics: the effect

2001

of double minority status on residential segregation, America Sociological Review, 54, pp. 790 – 808. DODOO, F. N. (1997) Assimilation differences among Africans in America, Social Forces, 76(2), pp. 527– 546. DUNCAN, O. D. and LIEBERSON, S. (1959) Ethnic segregation and assimilation, American Journal of Sociology, 64, pp. 364 – 374. FARLEY , J. E. (1995) Race still matters: the minimal role of income and housing cost as causes of housing segregation in St Louis, 1990, Urban Affairs Review, 31, pp. 244 – 254. FARLEY , R. (1990) Residential segregation of social and economic groups among Blacks: 1970– 1980, in: C. JENCKS and P. PETERSON (Eds) The Urban Underclass, pp. 274– 298. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. FARLEY , R. and ALLEN , W. R. (1987) The Color Line and the Quality of Life in America. New York: Oxford University Press. FARLEY , R. and FREY, W. (1993) Latino, Asian, and Black immigrant segregation in multiethnic areas: ndings from the 1990 Census. Research Report No. 93– 278, Population Studies Center, University of Michigan. FARLEY , R. and FREY, W. (1994) Changes in the segregation of Whites from Black immigrants during the 1980s: small steps toward a more integrated society, American Sociological Review, 59, pp. 23– 45. FARLEY , R., STEEH, C. S., JACKSON, T. ET AL. (1994) The causes of continued racial residential segregation: chocolate city, vanilla suburbs revisited, Journal of Housing Research, 4, pp. 1– 38. FORSYTHE, D. (1976) Black immigrants and the American ethos: theories and observations, in: R. S. BRYCE-LAPORTE and D. M. MORTIMER (Eds) Caribbean Immigration to the United States, pp. 55– 82. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. FREEMAN, L. (1999) A note on the in uence of African heritage on segregation: the case of Dominicans, Urban Affairs, 35(1), pp. 137– 146. FREEMAN, L. (2000) Minority housing segregation: a test of three perspectives, Journal of Urban Affairs, 22(1), pp. 15– 37. GALSTER, G. (1991) Housing discrimination and the urban poverty of African Americans, Journal of Housing Research, 2, pp. 1– 36. GEORGE, N. (1998) Hip Hop America. New York: Penguin Books. GLAZER , N. and MOYNIHAN, D. P. (1963) Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians, and Irish of New York City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. GOULD -ELLEN , I. (1997) Welcome neighbours? New evidence on the possibility of stable


2002

LANCE FREEMAN

racial integration, Brookings Review, 15, pp. 23– 35. GROSS, A. B. and MASSEY, D. S. (1991) Spatial assimilation models: a micro– macro comparison, Social Science Quarterly, 72, pp. 345 – 360. GUEST, A. M., and W EED, J. A. (1976) Ethnic residential segregation: patterns of change, American Journal of Sociology, 81, pp. 1088– 1111. HARRISON, R. J. and WEINBERG, D. H. (1992) Racial and ethnic segregation in 1990. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Denver, May. HAUSER, R. M. and WARREN, J. R. (1997) Socioeconomic indexes for occupations: a review, update, and critique, Sociological Methodology, 27, pp. 177 – 298. JACKSON, P. (1981) Paradoxes of Puerto Rican segregation in New York, in: C. PEACH, V. ROBINSON and S. SMITH (Eds) Ethnic Segregation in Cities, pp. 109– 126. London: Croom Helm. KALMIJN , M. (1996) The socioeconomic assimilation of Caribbean American Black immigrants, Social Forces, 74, pp. 911– 930. KANTROWITZ, N. (1973) Ethnic and Racial Segregation in the New York Metropolis. New York: Praeger. KASINITZ, P. (1992) Caribbean New York. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. LEE, M. W. (1996) Housing New York City. New York: City of New York Department of Housing Preservation and Development. LIEBERSON, S. (1963) Ethnic Patterns in American Cities. New York: Free Press. LOGAN, J., ALBA, R. and LEUNG, S. (1996a) Minority access to white neighborhoods : a multiregional comparison, Social Forces, 74, pp. 851 – 881. LOGAN, J. R., ALBA, R. D., MCNULTY , T. and FISHER, B. (1996b) Making a place in the metropolis: locational attainment in cities and suburbs, Demography, 33, pp. 443 – 453. MASSEY, D. S. (1985) Ethnic residential segregation: a theoretical synthesis and empirical review, Sociology and Social Research, 69, pp. 315 – 350. MASSEY, D. S. and BITTERMAN , B. (1985) Explaining the paradox of Puerto Rican segregation, Social Forces, 64, pp. 306 – 331. MASSEY, D. S. and DENTON, N. A. (1985) Spatial assimilation as a socioeconomic outcome, American Sociological Review, 50, pp. 94– 106. MASSEY, D. S. and DENTON , S. (1988a) The dimensions of racial segregation, Social Forces, 67, pp. 281 – 315. MASSEY, D. S. and DENTON, S. (1988b) Residential segregation of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians by socioeconomic status and generation, Social Science Quarterly, 69, pp. 797 – 818.

MASSEY, D. S. and DENTON, S. (1993) American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. MASSEY, D. S. and FONG , E. (1990) Segregation and neighborhoo d quality: Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in the San Francisco metropolitan area, Social Forces, 69, pp. 15– 32. MASSEY, D. S. and MULLAN, B. P. (1984) Processes of Hispanic and Black spatial assimilation, American Journal of Sociology, 89, pp. 836– 873. MASSEY, D. S., CONDRAN, G. A. and DENTON, N. A. (1987) The effect of residential segregation on Black social and economic well-being, Social Forces, 66, pp. 29– 56. MODEL, S. (1995) West Indian prosperity: fact or ction?, Social Problems, 42, pp. 535 – 553. NEW YORK CITY , DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING (1999) The Newest New Yorkers: 1995– 1996. New York: New York City, Department of City Planning. NOSSITER , A. (1995) A Jamaican way station in the Bronx, New York Times, 25 October, p. A26. OSOFSKY, G. (1971) Harlem: The Making of a Ghetto. New York: Harper and Row. PALMER , R. W. (1995) Pilgrims from the Sun. New York: Twayne Publishers. PARK, R. E. (1926) The urban community as a spatial pattern and a moral order, in: E. W. BURGESS (Ed.) The Urban Community, pp. 3– 18. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. PORTES, A., and RUMBAUT, R. G. (1996) Immigrant America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. PORTES, A., and RUMBAUT, R. G. (2001) Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ROSENBAUM, E. (1996) The in uence of race on Hispanic housing choices: New York City, 1978 – 87, Urban Affairs Review, 32, pp. 217 – 243. SOWELL, T. (1978) Three Black immigrant histories, in: T. SOWELL (Ed.) Essays and Data on American Ethnic Groups, pp. 7– 64. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. SOWELL, T. (1982) Race and Economics. New York: Longman. TRAUB, J. (1982) You can get it if you really want, Harpers, June, pp. 27– 31. UYEKI, E. P. (1980) Ethnic and racial segregation, Cleveland, 1910– 1970, Ethnicity, 7, pp. 390 – 403. WARNER, W. L. and SROLE, L. (1945) The Social Systems of American Ethnic Groups. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. WATERS, M. C. (1994) Ethnic and racial identities of second-generation Black immigrant immi-



grants in New York City, International Migration Review, 28, pp. 795 – 820. WATERS, M. C. (2000) Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. WHITE, M. J., BIDDLECOM , A. and GUO, S. (1993) Immigration, naturalization, and residential assimilation among Asian Americans in 1980,

2003

Social Forces, 72(1), pp. 93– 117. WILSON, W. J. (1978) The Declining Signi cance of Race. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ZHOU, M. and L OGAN, J. R. (1991) In and out of Chinatown: residential mobility and segregation of New York City’s Chinese, Social Forces, 70(2), pp. 387– 407.
