Structural versus Ethnic Dimensions of Housing Segregation
March 2016
Working Paper Number:
CES-16-22
Abstract
Racial residential segregation is still very high in many American cities. Some portion of segregation is attributable to socioeconomic differences across racial lines; some portion is caused by purely racial factors, such as preferences about the racial composition of one's neighborhood or discrimination in the housing market. Social scientists have had great difficulty disaggregating segregation into a portion that can be explained by interracial differences in socioeconomic characteristics (what we call structural factors) versus a portion attributable to racial and ethnic factors. What would such a measure look like? In this paper, we draw on a new source of data to develop an innovative structural segregation measure that shows the amount of segregation that would remain if we could assign households to housing units based only on non-racial socioeconomic characteristics. This inquiry provides vital building blocks for the broader enterprise of understanding and remedying housing segregation.
Document Tags and Keywords
Keywords
Keywords are automatically generated using KeyBERT, a powerful and innovative
keyword extraction tool that utilizes BERT embeddings to ensure high-quality and contextually relevant
keywords.
By analyzing the content of working papers, KeyBERT identifies terms and phrases that capture the essence of the
text, highlighting the most significant topics and trends. This approach not only enhances searchability but
provides connections that go beyond potentially domain-specific author-defined keywords.
:
black,
minority,
ethnicity,
ethnic,
hispanic,
white,
metropolitan,
segregated,
discrimination,
segregation,
disadvantaged,
population,
racial,
interracial,
race,
housing,
residential,
socioeconomic,
neighborhood,
suburb,
resident,
home,
disparity,
residential segregation
Tags
Tags are automatically generated using a pretrained language model from spaCy, which excels at
several tasks, including entity tagging.
The model is able to label words and phrases by part-of-speech,
including "organizations." By filtering for frequent words and phrases labeled as "organizations", papers are
identified to contain references to specific institutions, datasets, and other organizations.
:
Metropolitan Statistical Area,
Harvard University,
Supreme Court,
Decennial Census,
Research Data Center,
American Community Survey,
Russell Sage Foundation,
Public Use Micro Sample,
Federal Statistical Research Data Center
Similar Working Papers
Similarity between working papers are determined by an unsupervised neural
network model
know as Doc2Vec.
Doc2Vec is a model that represents entire documents as fixed-length vectors, allowing for the
capture of semantic meaning in a way that relates to the context of words within the document. The model learns to
associate a unique vector with each document while simultaneously learning word vectors, enabling tasks such as
document classification, clustering, and similarity detection by preserving the order and structure of words. The
document vectors are compared using cosine similarity/distance to determine the most similar working papers.
Papers identified with 🔥 are in the top 20% of similarity.
The 10 most similar working papers to the working paper 'Structural versus Ethnic Dimensions of Housing Segregation' are listed below in order of similarity.
-
Working PaperMetropolitan Segregation: No Breakthrough in Sight🔥
May 2022
Working Paper Number:
CES-22-14
The 2020 Census offers new information on changes in residential segregation in metropolitan regions across the country as they continue to become more diverse. We take a long view, assessing trends since 1980 and extrapolating to the future. These new data mostly reinforce patterns that were observed a decade ago: high but slowly declining black-white segregation, and less intense but hardly changing segregation of Hispanics and Asians from whites. Enough time has passed since the civil rights era of the 1960s and 1970s to draw this conclusion: segregation will continue to divide Americans well into the 21st Century.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperBlack Pioneers, Intermetropolitan Movers, and Housing Desegregation🔥
March 2016
Working Paper Number:
CES-16-23
In this project, we examine the mobility choices of black households between 1960 and 2000. We use household-level Decennial Census data geocoded down to the census tract level. Our results indicate that, for black households, one's status as an intermetropolitan migrant ' especially from an urban area outside the South ' is a powerful predictor of pioneering into a white neighborhood. Moreover, and perhaps even more importantly, the ratio of these intermetropolitan black arrivals to the incumbent metropolitan black population is a powerful predictor of whether a metropolitan area experiences substantial declines in housing segregation.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperWHITE-LATINO RESIDENTIAL ATTAINMENTS AND SEGREGATION IN SIX CITIES: ASSESSING THE ROLE OF MICRO-LEVEL FACTORS
January 2016
Working Paper Number:
CES-16-51
This study examines the residential outcomes of Latinos in major metropolitan areas using new methods to connect micro-level analyses of residential attainments to overall patterns of segregation in the metropolitan area. Drawing on new formulations of standard measures of evenness, we conduct micro-level multivariate analyses using the restricted-use census microdata files to predict segregation-relevant neighborhood outcomes for individuals by race. We term the dependent variables segregation-relevant neighborhood outcomes because the differences in average outcomes for each group on these variables determine the values of the aggregate measures of evenness. This approach allows me to use standardization and components analysis to quantitatively assess the separate contributions that differences in social characteristics and differences in rates of return make towards determining the overall disparity in residential outcomes ' that is, the level of segregation ' between Whites and Latinos. Based on our micro-level residential attainment analyses we find that for Latinos, acculturation and gains in socioeconomic status are associated with greater residential contact with Whites, in agreement with spatial assimilation theory, which promotes lower segregation. However, our standardization and components analyses reveals that a substantial portion of White-Latino disparities in residential contact with Whites can be attributed to differences in rates of return; that is White-Latino differences in the ability to translate acculturation and gains in socioeconomic status into more residential contact with Whites. This is further elaborated upon by assessing the changes in contact with Whites for Whites and Latinos after manipulating single variables while holding all others constant. This can be interpreted as the role of discrimination which is emphasized by place stratification theory. Therefore we conclude that while members of minority groups make gains in residential outcomes that reduce segregation by attaining parity with Whites on social characteristics as spatial assimilation theory would predict, a substantial disparity will persist as Latinos cannot translate those gains into greater contact with Whites at the rate that Whites can. At the aggregate level of analysis, this means that White-Latino segregation remains substantial even when groups are equalized on social and economic characteristics.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperDynamics of Race: Joining, Leaving, and Staying in the American Indian/Alaska Native Race Category between 2000 and 2010
August 2014
Working Paper Number:
carra-2014-10
Each census for decades has seen the American Indian and Alaska Native population increase substantially more than expected. Changes in racial reporting seem to play an important role in the observed net increases, though research has been hampered by data limitations. We address previously unanswerable questions about race response change among American Indian and Alaska Natives (hereafter 'American Indians') using uniquely-suited (but not nationally representative) linked data from the 2000 and 2010 decennial censuses (N = 3.1 million) and the 2006-2010 American Community Survey (N = 188,131). To what extent do people change responses to include or exclude American Indian? How are people who change responses similar to or different from those who do not? How are people who join a group similar to or different from those who leave it? We find considerable race response change by people in our data, especially by multiple-race and/or Hispanic American Indians. This turnover is hidden in cross-sectional comparisons because people joining the group are similar in number and characteristics to those who leave the group. People in our data who changed their race response to add or drop American Indian differ from those who kept the same race response in 2000 and 2010 and from those who moved between a single-race and multiple-race American Indian response. Those who consistently reported American Indian (including those who added or dropped another race response) were relatively likely to report a tribe, live in an American Indian area, report American Indian ancestry, and live in the West. There are significant differences between those who joined and those who left a specific American Indian response group, but poor model fit indicates general similarity between joiners and leavers. Response changes should be considered when conceptualizing and operationalizing 'the American Indian and Alaska Native population.'View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperWho Gentrifies Low Income Neighborhoods?
January 2008
Working Paper Number:
CES-08-02
This paper uses confidential Census data, specifically the 1990 and 2000 Census Long- Form data, to study the demographic processes underlying the gentrification of low income urban neighborhoods during the 1990's. In contrast to previous studies, the analysis is conducted at the more refined census-tract level with a narrower definition of gentrification and more narrowly defined comparison neighborhoods. The analysis is also richly disaggregated by demographic characteristic, uncovering differential patterns by race, education, age and family structure that would not have emerged in the more aggregate analysis in previous studies. The results provide little evidence of displacement of low-income non-white households in gentrifying neighborhoods. The bulk of the income gains in gentrifying neighborhoods are attributed to white college graduates and black high school graduates. It is the disproportionate in-migration of the former and the disproportionate retention and income gains of the latter that appear to be the main engines of gentrification.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperIs the Melting Pot Still Hot? Explaining the Resurgence of Immigrant Segregation
August 2004
Working Paper Number:
CES-04-10
This paper uses decennial Census data to examine trends in immigrant segregation in the United States between 1910 and 2000. Immigrant segregation declined in the first half of the century, but has been rising steadily over the past three decades. Analysis of restricted access 1990 Census microdata suggests that this rise would be even more striking if the native-born children of immigrants could be consistently excluded from the analysis. We analyze panel and cross-sectional variation in immigrant segregation, as well as housing price patterns across metropolitan areas, to test four hypotheses of immigrant segregation. Immigration itself has surged in recent decades, but the tendency for newly arrived immigrants to be younger and of lower socioeconomic status explains very little of the recent rise in immigrant segregation. We also find no evidence of increased nativism in the housing market. Evidence instead points to changes in urban form, particularly the tendency for ethnic enclaves to form as suburbanizing households leave older neighborhoods, as a central explanation for the new immigrant segregation.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperExamining Racial Identity Responses Among People with Middle Eastern and North African Ancestry in the American Community Survey
March 2024
Working Paper Number:
CES-24-14
People with Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) backgrounds living in the United States are defined and classified as White by current Federal standards for race and ethnicity, yet many MENA people do not identify as White in surveys, such as those conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. Instead, they often select 'Some Other Race', if it is provided, and write in MENA responses such as Arab, Iranian, or Middle Eastern. In processing survey data for public release, the Census Bureau classifies these responses as White in accordance with Federal guidance set by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Research that uses these edited public data relies on limited information on MENA people's racial identification. To address this limitation, we obtained unedited race responses in the nationally representative American Community Survey from 2005-2019 to better understand how people of MENA ancestry report their race. We also use these data to compare the demographic, cultural, socioeconomic, and contextual characteristics of MENA individuals who identify as White versus those who do not identify as White. We find that one in four MENA people do not select White alone as their racial identity, despite official guidance that defines 'White' as people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. A variety of individual and contextual factors are associated with this choice, and some of these factors operate differently for U.S.-born and foreign-born MENA people living in the United States.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperAmerica's Churning Races: Race and Ethnic Response Changes between Census 2000 and the 2010 Census
August 2014
Working Paper Number:
carra-2014-09
Race and ethnicity responses can change over time and across contexts - a component of population change not usually taken into account. To what extent do race and/or Hispanic origin responses change? Is change more common to/from some race/ethnic groups than others? Does the propensity to change responses vary by characteristics of the individual? To what extent do these changes affect researchers? We use internal Census Bureau data from the 2000 and 2010 censuses in which individuals' responses have been linked across years. Approximately 9.8 million people (about 6 percent) in our large, non-representative linked data have a different race and/or Hispanic origin response in 2010 than they did in 2000. Several groups experienced considerable fluidity in racial identification: American Indians and Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, and multiple-race response groups, as well as Hispanics when reporting a race. In contrast, race and ethnic responses for single-race non-Hispanic whites, blacks, and Asians were relatively consistent over the decade, as were ethnicity responses by Hispanics. People who change their race and/or Hispanic origin response(s) are doing so in a wide variety of ways, as anticipated by previous research. For example, people's responses change from multiple races to a single race, from a single race to multiple races, from one single race to another, and some people add or drop a Hispanic response. The inflow of people to each race/Hispanic group is in many cases similar in size to the outflow from the same group, such that cross-sectional data would show a small net change. We find response changes across ages, sexes, regions, and response modes, with variation across groups. Researchers should consider the implications of changing race and Hispanic origin responses when conducting analyses and interpreting results.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperImproving Estimates of Neighborhood Change with Constant Tract Boundaries
May 2022
Working Paper Number:
CES-22-16
Social scientists routinely rely on methods of interpolation to adjust available data to their research needs. This study calls attention to the potential for substantial error in efforts to harmonize data to constant boundaries using standard approaches to areal and population interpolation. We compare estimates from a standard source (the Longitudinal Tract Data Base) to true values calculated by re-aggregating original 2000 census microdata to 2010 tract areas. We then demonstrate an alternative approach that allows the re-aggregated values to be publicly disclosed, using 'differential privacy' (DP) methods to inject random noise to protect confidentiality of the raw data. The DP estimates are considerably more accurate than the interpolated estimates. We also examine conditions under which interpolation is more susceptible to error. This study reveals cause for greater caution in the use of interpolated estimates from any source. Until and unless DP estimates can be publicly disclosed for a wide range of variables and years, research on neighborhood change should routinely examine data for signs of estimation error that may be substantial in a large share of tracts that experienced complex boundary changes.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperThe Case of the Missing Ethnicity: Indians without Tribes in the 21st Century
June 2011
Working Paper Number:
CES-11-17
Among American Indians and Alaska Natives, most aspects of ethnicity are tightly associated with the person's tribal origins. Language, history, foods, land, and traditions differ among the hundreds of tribes indigenous to the United States. Why did almost one million of them fail to respond to the tribal affiliation part of the Census 2000 race question? We investigate four hypotheses about why one-third of multiracial American Indians and one-sixth of single-race American Indians did not report a tribe: (1) survey item non-response which undermines all fillin- the-blank questions, (2) a non-salient tribal identity, (3) a genealogy-based affiliation, and (4) mestizo identity which does not require a tribe. We use multivariate logistic regression models and high-density restricted-use Census 2000 data. We find support for the first two hypotheses and note that the predictors and results differ substantially for single race versus multiple race American Indians.View Full Paper PDF
