John R. Logan

Immigrant Enclaves and Ethnic Communities in New York and Los Angeles

The predominant post-1965 immigrant groups have established distinctive settlement areas in many American cities and suburbs. These areas are generally understood in terms of an immigrant enclave model in which ethnic neighborhoods in central cities serve relatively impoverished new arrivals as a potential base for eventual spatial assimilation with the white majority. This model, and the ethnic community model, are evaluated here. In the ethnic community model, segregated settlement can result from group preferences even when spatial assimilation is otherwise feasible. Analysis of the residential patterns of the largest immigrant groups in New York and Los Angeles shows that most ethnic neighborhoods can be interpreted as immigrant enclaves. In some cases, however living in ethnic neighborhoods is unrelated to economic constraints, indicating a positive preference for such areas. Suburban residence does not necessarily imply living outside of ethnic neighborhoods. Indeed, for several groups the suburban enclave provides an alternative to assimilation-it is an ethnic community in a relatively high-status setting.

Segregation of minorities in the metropolis: two decades of change.

Data from Census 2000 show that black-white segregation declined modestly at the national level after 1980, while Hispanic and Asian segregation rose in most metropolitan areas. Changes that may have produced greater changes for blacks proved to have insignificant effects: there was no net shift of the black population toward less-segregated areas, segregation at the metropolitan level did not decline more in areas where the incomes of blacks came closer to the incomes of whites over time, and the emergence of more multiethnic metropolises had no impact. As in the past, declines were centered in the South and West and in areas with smaller black populations. Increases in Hispanic and Asian segregation in individual metropolitan areas were counterbalanced by a net movement of these two groups toward areas of lower segregation. These increases were associated especially with the more rapid growth in the Hispanic and Asian populations. Hispanic segregation increased more in regions where group members had declining incomes relative to the incomes of whites and included a growing share of immigrants.

Minority proximity to Whites in suburbs: an individual-level analysis of segregation.

A novel method for location analysis at the individual level is used to analyze the determinants of proximity to non-Hispanic whites separately for Asians, blacks, Hispanics, and for non-Hispanic whites themselves. The resulting regression analyses, for which the percentage of non-Hispanic whites in a community serves as the dependent variable, reveal how the familiar P* segregation measure is generated through locational patterns that map racial/ethnic-group members with specific personal and household characteristics into communities with specific mojority-group proportions. The analyses are developed from two complementary theoretical models- spatial assimilation and place stratification-and applied to the suburban communities of the nations largest metropolitan region, surrounding New York City, as of 1980. Consistent with the place-stratification model, proximity to non-Hispanic whites is very different for members of the white and black groups and little affected by their individual characteristics other than race. By contrast, Asians and Hispanics appear more consistent with the spatial-assimilation model.

Market transition and the persistence of power: The changing stratification system in urban China

Research on transitional socialist societies has explored trends in income inequality and issues concerning who gains and who loses during market reforms. We find that income inequality in a major Chinese city declined only slightly during the first decade of reform policies; it then increased dramatically in the subsequent five years. Strategic position in the state bureaucracy continues to be an important determinant of income, although connections to the market system are becoming alternate sources of advantage. We interpret these findings in light of the historical and institutional context of urban China

Immigrant groups in the suburbs : A reexamination of suburbanization and spatial assimilation

For a number of contemporary immigrant groups, suburbanization is occurring at high levels, and either increased or remained stable during the 1980s, a decade of high immigration. We investigate whether these settlement patterns are consistent with spatial-assimilation theory. Using Public Use Microdata from the 1980 and 1990 U.S. censuses, we examine the link between suburban residence and life-cycle, socioeconomic, and assimilation characteristics for 11 racial/ethnic groups, including those growing most from contemporary immigration as well as non Hispanic whites. We find support for some aspects of the theory. The determinants of suburban residence are consistent between the 1980 and 1990 models, with some important exceptions: Among several groups, especially Asian groups, the effects of very recent immigration and linguistic assimilation have weakened. Our findings indicate that barriers to the entry of new immigrants to suburbia are nov lower than before. The growing numbers of recent immigrants there suggest the emergence of new ethnic concentrations and infrastructure

Variations on Two Themes: Racial and Ethnic Patterns in the Attainment of Suburban Residence*

To investigate racial and ethnic diversity in suburbanization, we draw on two complementary theoretical traditions, which we label “assimilation” and “stratification.” Our analytic model is multilevel, and includes variables characterizing individuals, households, and metropolitan contexts. We use it to analyze the determinants of suburban versus central-city residence for 11 racial/ethnic groups. The analysis reveals that family status, socioeconomic, and assimilation variables influence the suburbanization process rather consistently. We take this finding as evidence in favor of the assimilation model. These effects display group variations, however, in a manner predicted by the stratification model. There are also suburbanization differences among metropolitan areas, particularly related to the relative economic status of cities and their suburbs, and between the northeast/north central regions and the south/west. Finally, we conclude that suburbanization is variable across the groups in a way that is not captured by broad categories such as “Asian” or “Hispanic.”

Only English by the Third Generation?: Loss and Preservation of the Mother Tongue Among the Grandchildren of Contemporary Immigrants

We investigate whether a three-generation model of linguistic assimilation, known from previous waves of immigration, can be applied to the descendants of contemporary immigrant groups. Using the 5% Integrated Public Use Microdata Sample 1990 file, we examine the home languages of second- and third-generation children and compare the degree of their language shift against that among the descendants of European immigrants, as evidenced in the 1940 and 1970 censuses. Overall, the rates of speaking only English for a number of contemporary groups suggest that Anglicization is occurring at roughly the same pace for Asians as it did for Europeans, but is slower among the descendants of Spanish speakers. Multivariate models for three critical groups—Chinese, Cubans, and Mexicans—indicate that the home languages of third-generation children are most affected by factors, such as intermarriage, that determine the languages spoken by adults and by the communal context.

Locational returns to human capital: minority access to suburban community resources.

The suburbanization of racial and ethnic minorities is analyzed in terms of the locational resources provided by their communities of residence. In suburbs in the New York CMSA, non-Hispanic whites and Asians, on average, live in communities with higher average socioeconomic status, while Hispanics and blacks live in the less desirable suburbs. Models predicting suburban socioeconomic status for each racial/ethnic group show that whites and Hispanics receive consistent returns on income, acculturation, and family status. Asians’ locational patterns differ because they are unrelated to measures of acculturation; for blacks, locational outcomes correspond least to any of these human capital characteristics.

Housing inequality in urban China in the 1990s

Access to housing of sufficient space and quality has been a central element in social stratification in urban China. We examine the sources of housing inequality in 1993 in Shanghai and Tianjin, when a market reform process had been underway in the national economy for nearly fifteen years. The Chinese housing allocation system favors people with political position and connections, those of higher socio-economic background, and those whose work units have greater organizational authority. There is only slight evidence that market reform has undermined this stratification order. To the contrary, there are reasons to believe that in some respects inequalities rooted in socialism are strengthened by institutional changes. These conclusions are reinforced by comparison to results of analyses of income inequality in the same cities. Copyright Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999.

Assimilation and stratification in the homeownership patterns of racial and ethnic groups.

This study investigates homeownership differences among twelve racial/ethnic groups using the Public Use Sample data (PUMS) of the 1980 census. The analysis draws inspiration from two broad approaches in the literature on spatial processes—one approach is labeled as “assimilation” and the other as “stratification”—and includes both individual-level and contextual determinants. The study identifies a number of differences among non-Hispanic whites, blacks, American Indians, and Asian and Hispanic groups in access to homeownership. Majority group members have the greatest probability of homeownership, net of compositional characteristics. They also are the most likely to be able to respond to the housing needs of married persons and households with children by buying a home, and they have one of the smallest disparities in ownership between persons of low and high income. Homeownership opportunities in the suburban portions of metropolitan areas have their greatest impact on majority group members, while minority homeownership is more responsive to the composition of the central-city housing stock. Nevertheless, for every group there is a strong correspondence between homeownership and various individual-level factors: age, household composition, socioeconomic position and language acculturation. The observed differences in ownership are substantially attenuated when group differences in some of these variables are controlled.