Background

Objective

Methods

Results

In the past decade there has been a growing literature focused on explaining the patterns of residential separation in U.S. metropolitan areas. The research of two decades ago which focused on the locational structure of the mono-centric city represented by studies by Alonso (1964), Mills (1967), Muth (1969) and Wingo (1961) was mostly concerned with the way in which land uses as a whole are structured in the city. There was much less attention directed to the issues of residential separation, especially the separation of ethnic areas within metropolitan areas.

In the last dozen years at least three research streams have developed to explore the issue of residential patterning and neighborhood change. One of these streams considers neighborhood change as the outcome of a set of exogenous factors such as income, population growth, changing job locations and housing change.

A second research stream also includes exogenous economic factors additionally includes the role of racially biased household preferences, racial discrimination in the functioning of the housing market and by extension in the transition of neighborhoods.

The third research stream specifically examines the way in which discrimination affects the patterns of separation.

Paralleling the debates about the factors which influence the nature of residential change and residential separation are empirical studies of residential change itself. An important aspect of understanding residential change is residential behavior and the resulting changes in residential separation. Much of the emphasis has been on the role of tipping and explanations of tipping.

Multiculturalism has been advanced as an alternative to normative assimilation theory. Multiculturalists argue that it provides a more nuanced solution to the incorporation of immigrants in immigrant driven societies such as the United States. However, rising nationalism and fears of separatism have raised questions about the efficacy of multiculturalism and reinvigorated assimilationists. But, debates between multiculturalists and assimilationists are largely stalemated discussions of how society might best incorporate new arrivals, because they ignore the fundamental issue of very large marginalized groups. This paper will argue that the debates might better be directed to issues of inequality and marginalization as the central issues of incorporation. While all immigrants are to some extent marginalized, the large and growing undocumented population (especially in the US) challenges the notion of how incorporation will proceed at all. Both assimilation and multiculturalism assume a legal basis to society and the recognition of shared political values and the respect for national consensus but the growing number of undocumented (unauthorized or illegal immigrants) are in effect outside of either the assimilationist or the multicultural model. They are often outside of the formal labor markets, residentially isolated, and have poor of non-existent skills. They are unlikely to be able to acquire the economic and cultural gains that will led to assimilation, or enable them to participate in a multi-cultural society. They are more likely to live separate lives and thus increase the divisions within society. I use data on undocumented immigrants in Los Angeles to illustrate the vulnerability, marginality and the problems encountered by these immigrants and use this to extrapolate to issues of assimilation and multiculturalism.

For the past decade and a half there has been a concerted effort to determine if policy interventions in residential location can solve the problems of inner city poverty and racial concentration. Studies based on data from the Gautreaux litigation and the HUD sponsored Moving to Opportunity (MTO) program have provided an overall optimistic interpretation of the possibilities of improving inner city lives with mobility vouchers and counseling. A re-analysis of the data from the MTO program focusing specifically on African American households suggests greater caution in the interpretation of the findings from either Gautreaux or the MTO program. There is no statistically significant difference between the percent of poor or the percent of black in the current neighborhoods between MTO and Section 8 experimental groups. In some cases there is no statistically significant difference between moves with vouchers and those who move without any assistance at all. Although there is some evidence that the MTO programs have brought specific gains for individual families, and there are quite significant geographic variability in outcomes, claims for the MTO program need to be treated with a great deal more caution than they have been to date.

Immigration, and births to new immigrants, will continue to fuel California's population growth, not just in the urban areas but in the cities and towns of rural counties. Local communities will face a wide range of social and economic changes as they adapt to increasing population diversity. As we enter a new century, the demands for greater investments in education, health care and other aspects of the urban infrastructure will increase.

This paper examines, in two separate analyses, actual and planned residential moves. Although we now have robust models and substantive empirical analysis of residential mobility, especially of the role of housing consumption and the variables that trigger residential moves, we are less clear about how the model applies to minority households and in diverse ethnic settings. This paper uses data from the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Study – a longitudinal study of mobility and neighborhood change in the Los Angeles region to contrast the mobility outcomes for white and Latino households. A separate analysis examines planned mobility and extends the analysis of the role of neighborhood variables in explaining expected mobility. The incorporation of measures of neighborhood satisfaction and dissatisfaction finds, as hypothesized, that low levels of satisfaction and whether or not the neighborhood is perceived as “close-knit” are modest predictors of the likelihood of future moves. However, the additive effect of neighborhood variables, beyond the structural effects of age and housing needs, on intentions is quite small.