UMI Number: 3176131

Copyright 2005 by
Yang, Rui

All rights reserved.

UMI Microform 3176131

Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
 Copyright 2005

Rui Yang

All Rights Reserved

Dedicated to my parents, for their unfailing love and support.
DOES SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT HELP PRODUCE ECONOMIC SEGREGATION

IN U.S. METROPOLITAN AREAS?

by

RUI YANG B.A., M.S.A.E.

DISSERTATION

Presented to the Faculty of

The University of Texas at Dallas

in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN POLITICAL ECONOMY

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS

August, 2005
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my appreciation to the chair of my dissertation committee, Dr. Paul A.

Jargowsky, for his guidance, support, and encouragement throughout the entire phase of this

study. I am especially grateful for his constructive comments and suggestions on early drafts

and for the numerous hours that he dedicated to this project. I also would like to express my

gratitude to each member of my committee for their incredible contributions to this

dissertation: Dr. Brian J. L. Berry, Dr. Ronald Briggs, and Dr. Roxanne Ezzet-Lofstrom.

Besides, I would like to thank Dr. Richard Scotch and Jeongdai Kim for their insightful

comments on early drafts of this study. I am also sincerely grateful for Dr. Irving Hoch for his

inspiring encouragements.

Additionally, I would like to thank Dr. Euel Elliott and Judy Robertson for their

assistances through my graduate school life. My appreciation is also extended to every

professor who taught me; I am sincerely thankful for the knowledge and skills I acquired in all

my graduate courses. I also would like to thank Cristen Casey, Christina Spicher, and every

staff in the International Student Office who make my life as an international student in this

country so much easier.

Finally, I wish to express my sincere appreciation my parents Jiangping Zhu and Shaofu

Yang, and my fiancé Hong Meng Lu for their unfailing love and support. Without them, this

dissertation and I would be unfinished.

July 2005

v
 DOES SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT HELP PRODUCE ECONOMIC SEGREGATION

IN U.S. METROPOLITAN AREAS?

Publication No. ___________________

Rui Yang, Ph.D.

The University of Texas at Dallas, 2005

Supervising Professor: Paul A. Jargowsky

ABSTRACT

Rapid suburbanization is changing the face of urban America. Despite voluminous literature on
the relationship between suburbanization and economic segregation, whether or not the current
suburban development patterns are significant contributors to the changes in economic
segregation remains an open empirical question. Using U.S. Census and PUMS data, this
research directly examines this empirical question by conducting a comprehensive analysis for
all metropolitan areas for the last decade. Empirical findings demonstrate economic
segregation, as measured by the Neighborhood Sorting Index, decreased significantly for all
racial and ethnic groups during the 1990s, reversing the earlier increasing trend from 1970 to
1990. Instead of constructing a comprehensive definition or a composite index, this research
identifies six specific indicators to characterize the contemporary suburbanization patterns and
tests their effects on economic segregation by multiple series of cross-sectional regressions and
first-difference, fixed-effects estimations. These indicators of suburbanization are: the urban
density gradient, the population density, the relatively rapid growth of the periphery, the
homogeneity of new growth, the exclusivity of local zoning, and the inaccessibility of jobs. The
empirical results essentially suggested that as a group, the contemporary suburbanization
patterns made a difference on the changes in economic segregation, although the individual
effect of each indicator was not robust.

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Number Page

Acknowledgements..............................................................................................................v

Abstract...............................................................................................................................vi

List of Figures.....................................................................................................................ix

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................x

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................1

CHAPTER 2 STUDIES OF RACIAL AND ECONOMIC SEGREGATION................10

CHAPTER 3 CHARACTERIZING SUBURBANIZATION PATTERNS ....................24

CHAPTER 4 MODEL AND HYPOTHESES.................................................................39

CHAPTER 5 DATA AND METHODOLOGY ..............................................................47

CHAPTER 6 ECONOMIC SEGREGATION IN THE 1990S........................................69

CHAPTER 7 SUBURBANIZATION INDICATORS IN THE 1990S...........................82

CHAPTER 8 ESTIMATION PROCEDURES AND EMPIRICAL RESULTS ...........101

CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSION........................................................................................131

APPENDIX A JOINT SIGNIFICANCE TEST 1 ..........................................................139

APPENDIX B CORRELATIONS TABLE....................................................................140

APPENDIX C JOINT SIGNIFICANCE TEST 2 ..........................................................141

vii
APPENDIX D THE 2ND SET OF CROSS-SECTIONAL MODELS (overall pooled) .142

APPENDIX E THE 3RD SET OF CROSS-SECTIONAL MODELS (2000 pooled) .....143

APPENDIX F DESCRIPTIVE STATISITCS 1.............................................................144

APPENDIX G DESCRIPTIVE STATISITCS 2............................................................146

APPENDIX H JOINT SIGNIFICANCE TEST 3 ..........................................................148

APPENDIX I OTHER THREE SETS OF FIXED-EFFECTS MODELS .....................149

APPENDIX J DESCRIPTIVE STATISITCS 3 .............................................................152

Vita

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Number Page

Figure 4-1. The conceptual model .....................................................................................39

Figure 5-1. Census divisions and regions ..........................................................................60

Figure 5-2. Lorenz curve ...................................................................................................67

Figure 6-1. Neighborhood Sorting Index (NSI) by racial/ethnic groups, 1970-2000 .......73

Figure 6-2. Histogram of pooled NSI ................................................................................81

Figure 6-3. Histogram of pooled changes in NSI ..............................................................81

Figure 7-1. Predicted central city density by population scale, 1990-2000.......................90

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

Number Page

Table 5-1. Population in 2000 by different metropoltian area classifications ...................48

Table 5-2. Metropolitan areas by census division .............................................................60

Table 5-3. Metropolitan context variables.........................................................................63

Table 5-4. Manufacturing employment and management profession ratios .....................65

Table 5-5. Mean household income and its percentage change ........................................65

Table 5-6. Social distance variables ..................................................................................67

Table 5-7. Hypothetical direct effects of independent variables .......................................68

Table 6-1. Jargowsky (1996): NSI by racial/ethnic group, 1970-1990 .............................70

Table 6-2. NSI by racial/ethnic group, 1990-2000 ............................................................72

Table 6-3. Metropolitan areas with NSI declines, 1990-2000...........................................74

Table 6-4. NSI in the 10 largest metropolitan areas, 1990-2000.......................................75

Table 6-5. Descriptive statistics of pooled NSI and pooled changes in NSI.....................79

Table 7-1. Descriptive statistics of the urban density gradient..........................................83

Table 7-2. The urban density gradient by census divisions...............................................85

Table 7-3. The urban density gradient by metropoiltan size .............................................86

Table 7-4. Descriptive statistics of the gross population density ......................................86

Table 7-5. The gross population density by census division and metropolitan size..........88

x
Table 7-6. Mean values of the estimated central city density............................................89

Table 7-7. Descriptive statisitcs of the zoning proxies......................................................91

Table 7-8. The zoning proxies by metropolitan size .........................................................92

Table 7-9. The zoning proxies by census division ............................................................93

Table 7-10. Descriptive statistics of the homogeneity of new development .....................94

Table 7-11. The homogeneity of new development by census division............................94

Table 7-12. The homogeneity of new development by metropolitan size ........................95

Table 7-13. The homogeneity of new development by 2000 mean household income ....96

Table 7-14. Descriptive statistics of the inaccessibility of jobs.........................................96

Table 7-15. The inaccessibility of jobs by census division ...............................................97

Table 7-16. The inaccessibility to jobs by metropolitan size ............................................98

Table 7-17. The relatively rapid growth rate in suburbs compared to central cities .........98

Table 7-18. Descriptive statistics of the relatively rapid growth rate................................99

Table 7-19. The relatively rapid growth rate by census division and metropolitan size .100

Table 8-1. Overall pooled cross-sectional WLS regression results .................................118

Table 8-2. 2000 pooled cross-sectional WLS regression results.....................................119

Table 8-3. Pooled first-difference fixed-effects WLS regression results ........................130

Table B-1. Correlations between the suburban indicators and log of population ...........140

Table D-1. Descriptive statistics for cross-sectional estimations ....................................142

Table E-1. Descriptive statistics for cross-sectional estimations.....................................143

Table F-1. First set of alternative fixed-effects regression results...................................144

xi
Table G-1. Descriptive statistics for fixed-effects estimations........................................146

Table I-1. Descriptive statistics for fixed-effects estimations .........................................149

Table I-2. Descriptive statistics for fixed-effects estimations .........................................150

Table I-3. Descriptive statistics for fixed-effects estimations .........................................151

Table J-1. Descriptive statistics for fixed-effects estimations .........................................152

xii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

This research is part of a broader concern with understanding the influences of rapid

suburbanization process in the United States. Although the suburbanization process is quite

common in all wealthy western nations, metropolitan areas in the United States are remarkably

spread out (Musterd and Ostendorf 1998). The contemporary suburban development in this

country needs to be understood beyond just a land use aesthetic, an environmental problem, or

a fixed set of characteristics of a region’s housing stock. Instead, the discussion of this

phenomenon should devote more attention to the links to urban uneven development, racial and

economic inequality, and power and politics. Specifically, this research examines whether the

current suburban development patterns have played a significant role in changes in economic

segregation in US metropolitan areas during the 1990s.

Despite deceases in segregation by race and ethnicity that have been observed in

American cities, segregation by income increased from the 1970s to 1990s (Abramson, Tobin,

and VanderGoot 1995; Dreier, Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom 2001; Jargowsky 1996; Lucy and

Phillips 2000; Massey 1996). Over the same period, the United States experienced a significant

degree of suburbanization (Burchell et al. 1998; Jackson 1985; Kunstler 1993; Popenoe 1979;

Heinlich and Andersen 2001). These two phenomena are plausibly connected. Numerous

studies describe the contemporary suburbanization pattern as the affluent and middle-class

Americans living in suburban areas that are far from their work place and leaving the inner-city

1
 2

poor residents behind (Dreier, Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom 2001; Jackson 1985; Squires 2002).

As suburban development occurs in the United States, it is linked very closely to the income

distribution (Jargowsky 2002). Furthermore, many policy makers and city planners suspect that

fast suburbanization promotes racial and income segregation.

However, whether or not the current suburban development patterns are significant

contributors to the changes in economic segregation remains an open empirical question. On

the one hand, there may be no necessary connection between suburbanization and economic

segregation. If the new suburbs developed with a complete menu of housing types and the

benefits of these new developments were equally accessible across the economic spectrum,

suburbanization would not perpetuate economic segregation between neighborhoods nor reduce

access to opportunity; even, the rapid peripheral growth could be a source of jobs that helps

reduce poverty and inequality and a force for economic integration. On the other hand, if the

newly developed suburbs are exclusively devoted to low-density, automobile-dependent

neighborhoods with only relatively high-income housing, suburbanization might increase

economic segregation by concentrating the poor in the inner cities.

Based upon 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census data, this research directly examines this

empirical question by conducting a comprehensive analysis for all metropolitan areas across

US. Measuring economic segregation by the Neighborhood Sorting Index, this research

complements the existing literature on economic segregation by investigating the new trends of

this social problem in U.S. metropolitan areas during the last decade.

Suburbanization in the United States, often characterized in a pejorative way as

“sprawl”, has become an intriguing research topic and sparked a national debate (Staley 1999).

Suburban development is frequently discussed in the literature; however, there is no universally

 3

agreed measure of suburbanization. Instead of treating suburban development as a monolith

and constructing a comprehensive definition or a composite index, this research identifies six

specific indicators to characterize the contemporary suburbanization patterns based on the

uneven development perspective and relevant literature, and tests their effects on economic

segregation. By doing so, first of all, it makes the interpretation easier. Also, it allows specific

policy implications to be made. The indicators of suburbanization are the urban density

gradient, the population density, the relatively rapid growth of the periphery, the homogeneity

of new growth, the exclusivity of local zoning, and the inaccessibility of jobs. Some indicators

of suburbanization may be more important in terms of their effects on economic segregation

than others. By indicating which aspects of suburbanization (if any) are important to

understanding the changes in economic segregation, this study also fits into the debate over the

consequences of contemporary metropolitan expansion.

Certainly suburban development is driven by the dynamics of demand and supply in the

housing market; nevertheless, “sprawl” occurs, in part, because local governments in the

United States encourage this form of development via zoning and subdivision ordinances

which, in turn, reflect the desires of a large share of their citizenry (Burchell et al. 1998). Thus

the findings of this research have important implications for public policies regarding urban

planning and community redevelopment. As suburbanization is currently on just about every

politician’s lips – local, state, and even national (Hartman 2002), this research may help

policymakers to extend their understanding of this phenomenon and encourage them to rethink

the relevant policies.

Moreover, economic segregation is a significant social phenomenon that gains attention

from numerous scholars and policymakers. It has many disadvantageous consequences for the
 4

society and complicates the background for making various social policies, such as welfare

policy and education policy. For instance, segregation between lower-income, central-city

neighborhoods and affluent exurban neighborhoods may contribute directly to the

concentration of poverty in the central cities. William Julius Wilson (1987) argues that people

live in neighborhoods with high levels of concentrated poverty experience a social isolation

that excludes them from job information networks. These neighborhoods are plagued not only

by unemployment, but also by crime and other self-destructive behaviors such as drug and

alcohol abuse, making the area even less attractive to outsiders. Furthermore, this community

isolation prevents many residents from developing a work ethnic. These “concentration effects”

cause neighborhoods to become almost completely cut off form the mainstream of society and

continue to spiral downward.

By numerous dimensions, the spatial isolation of the lower-income households not only

affects poverty and inequality in the short run, but also threatens the equality of opportunity in

the long run (Jargowsky 2002). First of all, the individual’s success in labor market is affected

the pattern of economic segregation. As most new office buildings and business centers are

being produced in the suburbs (Kasarda 1988) and new suburbs are being constructed at greater

and greater distances from the urban core, many jobs connected to this prosperous residential

base such as grocery stores, restaurants, and yard work move too. At the same time, similar job

opportunities in central cities shrink since the central-city neighborhoods concentrate more and

more lower-income households with less spending power. The divergence between the

centralized pattern of residence for the poor and the increasingly distant location of the new

jobs leads to a spatial mismatch (Dreier, Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom 2001). In an ideal world,

this type of spatial mismatch would not last long since households would simply relocate
 5

themselves to follow the employment opportunities, assuming no constraints exist. However,

the current suburbanization in this country has strengthened the barriers to movement. A well-

known example is that local jurisdictions use exclusionary zoning regulations to prevent low-

and moderate-income households from moving to the areas with the fastest growth in

employment (Helling 2002). Given constraints on housing mobility, the spatial mismatch may

make it difficult for the inner-city poor households to get suburban jobs because of the lack of

public transportation or the difficulty and expense of commuting by car. In addition,

information about jobs may not reach into central-city neighborhoods that have limited social,

political, and economic connections with the suburbs (Ihlanfeldt and Sjoquist 2000).

Economic segregation may also have negative influences on individual outcomes as

disadvantageous neighborhoods diminish the life chances of their residents. The so-called

“neighborhood effects” refers to hypothesized effects of the wealth and/or poverty of a

neighborhood’s residents and other closely related features such as family structure or

unemployment on the outcomes for specific individuals within the neighborhood, holding other

things constant (Jargowsky 2002). For instance, the “contagion” model argues that a

concentration of poor neighbors may lead people, especially teens, to emulate negative

behaviors, resulting in worse outcomes even when the influences of a person’s immediate

family and personal aspects are controlled (Crane 1991). Simultaneously, disadvantaged

neighborhoods may lack role models who could act as “social buffers” against the effects of

deprivation (Wilson 1987). Additionally, poor neighborhoods may be underserved by private or

public institutions that would be available to assist poor residents living in better-off

neighborhoods (Jencks and Mayer 1990). In general, neighborhoods “can make a big difference

in residents’ quality of life, their ability to compete effectively in the labor market, and their
 6

success in raising children” (Jargowsky 2002: 64). Especially, the isolated and impoverished

neighborhoods may have particularly strong negative impacts on adolescents who are searching

for their personal identities, forming their value systems, and shaping their life styles. More

exposure to crime, violence, drugs, child birth out of wedlock, and many other problem

behaviors increase the probability that youth living in poor neighborhoods will fall into a

downward spiral (Anderson 1991).

Furthermore, economic segregation may increase inequality in education, contributing

to the inter-generational transmission of poverty. When poor families are clustered

geographically and school attendance zones are also imposed geographically, poor children will

also be clustered in school. Given that much school finance is local in this country, schools in

poor neighborhoods have greater needs but a lower tax base; it is harder for them to hire and

retain high-quality teachers. Farkas (1996) also notes that, in some cases, teachers who

continually deal with children from troubled families develop low expectations for students.

Given the importance of human capital in the modern economy, lower-quality education for

children from lower-income households may perpetuate poverty and will likely to set the stage

for greater inequality for future generations (Levy 1995).

While the spatial separation of income groups compounds poverty and contributes

towards the growth of inequality, it also reduces public support for policies that may address

this cycle (Jargowsky 2002). The governmental fragmentation in suburban areas has continued

since the 1960s (Jargowsky 2002). Highly differentiated local governments can provide a wide

variety of choices. The Tiebout Hypothesis (1956) indicates that individual families will choose

the local jurisdiction that provides the optimal package of public services given the housing

cost and tax burden. Actually, during the decision-making process, better-off families often
 7

tend to place a geographical distance between themselves and lower-income households (Park

1926). As wealthier segments of society no longer share a common local government with

other income groups, the ability to carry out large-scale changes in public policy may diminish

(Jargowsky 2002).

The organization of the study is as follows: Chapter 2 reviews major studies on racial

and economic segregation. The methods and measures used to study segregation were

developed in the context of racial segregation, and racial segregation contributes in a

substantive way to segregation by income. Thus this chapter first reviews the works focusing

on racial segregation, then discusses the literature on economic segregation, and finally

summarizes the interrelationship between them.

Chapter 3 introduces the various perspectives adopted to understand suburban

development and the diverse approaches employed to characterize the contemporary

suburbanization patterns in the literature. Then, based upon the uneven development

perspective, this chapter identifies the urban density gradient, the population density, the

relatively rapid growth of the periphery, the homogeneity of new growth, the exclusivity of

local zoning, and the inaccessibility of jobs as six key indicators of suburbanization, and

discusses the theoretical relationship between each of them and economic segregation.

Chapter 4 begins by setting up a conceptual model that expresses economic segregation

as a function of suburbanization indicators, metropolitan context, structural economic

characteristics, and social distance and inequality. It discusses the theoretical relationships

between economic segregation and the variables characterizing metropolitan aspects other than

suburbanization, and summarizes the hypotheses that will be tests.

 8

Chapter 5 focuses on the actual data sources: the 1990 and 2000 US Census summary

files and 5 percent Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) data, the unit of analysis, and the

methodologies used to operationalize the economic segregation measure (the Neighborhood

Sorting Index), suburbanization indicators, and the variables controlling for metropolitan

context, structural economic characteristics, and social distance and inequality. It ends by

summarizing the hypothetical direct effect of each independent variable on economic

segregation in Table 5-7.

The empirical patterns of economic segregation in the 1990s are documented in Chapter

6. Using 1990 and 2000 Census and PUMS data, this chapter finds economic segregation, as

measured by the Neighborhood Sorting Index (NSI), decreased significantly over the last

decade, reversing the historical trend of increasing income segregation from 1970 to 1990. This

chapter also explores the potential causes of this trend, and illustrates the basic descriptive

statistics and histograms of the pooled NSI and the pooled changes in NSI, which serve as

dependent variables in the cross-sectional regressions and the fixed-effects estimates

respectively.

Regarding the suburbanization patterns in the 1990s, Chapter 7 discusses the basic

descriptive statistics and regional patterns of each suburbanization indicator, and illustrates how

all of them vary with the size of metropolitan areas. Of particular concern are the different

trends of gross population density and estimated central city density over the ten years, and the

comparison between the two alternative proxies of local zoning regimes: the total number of

local governments and the number of local governments per 100,000 households.

Results from three series of regression analyses are presented in Chapter 8. They are

presented in two sections: the first section focuses on two sets of cross-sectional models and the
 9

second one discusses the fixed-effects estimations. Each section elaborates the estimation

procedures, variable descriptions, estimation equations, and empirical results from these

regressions. Of particular interest is the demonstration that the estimated effects of

suburbanization indicators from the fixed-effects models are more consistent and robust,

compared with the ones by cross-sectional regressions.

Chapter 9 provides a summary of the main empirical findings, followed by a discussion

of policy implications. Existing limitations in this research and potential improvements for

future study are recognized as well.

 CHAPTER 2

STUDIES OF RACIAL AND ECONOMIC SEGREGATION

From a certain perspective, the rich studies of socioeconomic differentiation within the

US society could be categorized into three dimensions: residential segregation by race,

economic inequality, and economic segregation. Although the economic inequality problem is

well documented, this study pays little attention to this literature since it is not a focal point

here compared with segregation. Worth noting, however, two studies by the US Bureau of

Census (1992; 1993) found that the economic inequality in US had been increasing since 1979.

The following Sections address three related topics. Although the primary concern in this study

is economic segregation, it begins with a discussion of racial segregation for two reasons. First,

the methods and measures used to study segregation were developed in this context. Second,

racial segregation contributes in a substantive way to segregation by income. Thus, Section 2.1

first summarizes the conceptual and empirical work focusing on racial segregation, followed by

a discussion about conceptual and empirical literature on economic segregation in Section 2.2.

Finally, Section 2.3 reviews the theoretical and empirical studies regarding the interrelationship

of racial and economic segregation.

2.1 Racial segregation

In sociology, segregation represents that form of isolation in which social distance is

based upon physical separation. The physical barriers and spatial distance that set individuals

apart from the mass and group from group are sociologically significant only to the extent that

10
 11

they became obstacles to communication and inhibit social contact (Wirth 1954). The major

use of this term in the social sciences for some years was to denote the ecological process by

which people settle or locate in those areas of a community occupied by people of similar

social characteristics or activities (Bain 1969). Race, culture, religion, moral, status, language,

caste, class, wealth, occupation, physique and mentality, talent, taste, attitude, interest, in fact

any set of characteristics in which the members of a group may be similar to one another and

different from outsiders may become the basis of segregation (Wirth 1954). Among all these

possible bases, the residential segregation by race (or so-called racial segregation), which can

be denoted as the spatial segregation of households by race/ethnic status, is very prevalent and

has been particularly well investigated in current literature.

Massey and Denton (1987) pointed out that conceptually there were at least five

underlying factors concerning racial segregation: evenness, exposure, centralization,

concentration, and clustering. Mainly, they discussed the first two dimensions. Evenness is the

most important conceptual aspect of segregation. White (1986) argued that segregation in a

population was indicated by the unevenness of the distribution of its members across places or

categories. By Massey and Denton (1987), evenness is the differential distribution of minority

and majority members across census tracts within an urban area. A minority group is said to be

segregated if it is unevenly distributed over tracts. Residential evenness has typically been

measured by the well-know index of dissimilarity (D). However, evenness is not the only

dimension concerning racial segregation; the second dimension is exposure, which refers to the

degree of potential contact between minority and majority members within census tracts of

urban areas. Currently, the most widely used measure of exposure is the so-called exposure

index, which is also referred as the asymmetric intergroup contact index or P*.
 12

There is a voluminous and controversial literature on the measurement of residential

segregation by race (Massey and Denton 1987). White (1986) summarized various measures of

racial segregation existing in empirical studies, such as index of dissimilarity, interaction or

exposure index (also called exposure index), the Gini index, the Entropy index, Atkinson’s

Measure, Contingency table measures, analysis of variance (ANOVA) measures, and spatial

measures. The index of dissimilarity and the exposure index are the most frequently used two

in current research, and scholars presented diverse empirical results based upon them. The

index of dissimilarity can be defined as:

Dxy = .5 ∗ ( xi X ) − ( yi Y )

where xi and y i are the numbers of X and Y members in tract i, and X and Y are their city-wide

totals (Massey and Denton 1987). This index assesses how evenly two racial/ethnic groups (e.g.

Blacks and Whites) are distributed across the urban landscape. Its numerical value indicates the

percentage of either group who would have to move from one census tract to another to

eliminate segregation, that is, to produce an index of zero, while keeping the population size of

each tract fixed (Farley 1991). It scales from 0 to 100. In a case of Black-White segregation

study, D will equal to 100 if all Blacks lived in exclusively Black neighborhoods and all Whites

in all-White neighborhoods; and it will equal to 0 if people were perfectly evenly assigned to

all census tracts.

The exposure index estimates the probability of residential contact between groups X

and Y as:

xP * y = ( xi X ) * ( yi t i )
 13

where t i is the total population of tract i and the other variables are denoted as before. Take

Black-White segregation as an example, this index estimates the percentage of Whites

experienced by the average Black. Unlike the index of dissimilarity, the exposure index is

sensitive to relative size of groups. Furthermore, P* is an asymmetric measure of segregation

because its value depends partially on the relative number of X and Y members in the urban

area (Massey and Denton 1987). Therefore, for any two groups there are four possible exposure

indices: xP * x and yP * y are called isolation indices and xP * y and yP * x are called

interaction indices.

White (1983) argued that although regarded as the primary empirical indicator of racial

segregation, the index of dissimilarity, and all parcel-based measures, are subject to what has

been termed the “checkerboard problem”. The parcels can be shuffled into any spatial

configuration, and the index will not change. Also, these indices are sensitive to the size of the

parcels about which the tabulations are made. In fact, D increases as the size of the parcel

decreases. Moreover, the P* statistic can measure both the standard form of segregation and an

alternative form in which members of a given group live closer to members of the other group

or groups than to members of their own groups (White 1983).

Many empirical studies on racial segregation that employed the index of dissimilarity

and the exposure index had been done. Taeuber and Taeuber (1965) studied Black and White

segregation in 1940, 1950 and 1960 using the index of dissimilarity. They found that the levels

of racial segregation were very high in cities throughout the country. Using block data for 207

cities in 1960, the index of dissimilarity ranged from 60.4 to 98.1, only 8 cities had scores

below 70, and only 31 had values below 79.

 14

Massey and Denton (1987) examined trends in residential segregation for Blacks,

Hispanics, and Asians in 60 SMSAs between 1970 and 1980. Segregation was measured using

both dissimilarity and exposure indices. They concluded that in spite of declines over the

1980s, Blacks remained the most spatially isolated of the three minority groups. They also

found that Black segregation from Anglos declined in some smaller SMSAs in the south and

west (Austin, Denver, Oklahoma City), but in large urban areas in the northeastern and north

central states (Baltimore, Chicago) there was little change. In Detroit, Newark, New York, and

Philadelphia, the likelihood of Black contact with Anglos actually even decreased. By the index

of dissimilarity, the results largely replicate those by exposure indices. In addition, Hispanic

segregation was markedly below that of Blacks, but increased substantially in some urban areas

that experienced Hispanic immigration and population growth over the decade. Asian

segregation was quite low everywhere.

Farley and Frey (1994) analyzed changes in segregation for 232 metropolitan areas

during 1980 to 1990 and claimed much more optimistic results than many other scholars about

the prospects for racial integration. They used the more usual convention of comparing all

Whites to all Blacks and used block group data instead of tracts. They found that the Black-

White index of dissimilarity fell in 194 areas between 1980 and 1990. Furthermore, Jargowsky

(1997) calculated the tract-level Black-White dissimilarity index for the quartile of

metropolitan areas with the largest percentage of Blacks (80 out of 318) between 1980 and

1990, and found that the index declined by 0.03 points, while it decreased by 0.06 points for the

remaining three.
 15

2.2 Economic segregation

The study of economic segregation, which can be defined as “the spatial segregation of

households by income or social class” (Jargowsky 1996: 984), is rooted in the discussion of

class stratification and social mobility. In general, stratification refers to the systemic form of

inequality that divides societies and broadly impact occupational and social status. It may take

many forms based on wealth, gender, age, ethnicity, or some other forms of distinction

(Calhoun 2002). In social sciences, stratification as a term has come to mean the process by

which or the resulting structure in which families become differentiated from one another and

arranged in graded strata with varying degrees of prestige, and/or property, and/or power

(Tumin 1969). Therefore, the term economic segregation in current literature mainly refers to

the stratification by economic status (income or other standards) or social class and the

resulting patterns of spatial separation between families or groups. As a matter of fact, the

study of economic segregation in the US emerges from and is influenced by the investigation of

racial segregation. However, residential segregation by income and other measures of socio-

economic status has received much less attention by social scientists than segregation by race

(Kain 2000).

Worth noting, much of the research on economic segregation has dealt with the extent

of and trends in concentrated poverty. For instance, Wilson’s (1987) research on changes in the

geographic concentration of poverty is a quite famous and influential one. Wilson (1987)

showed that in the nation’s fifty largest cities, the poverty population rose by 12 percent and the

number of persons living in poverty areas (i.e., census tracts with a poverty rate of at least 20

percent) increased by more than 20 percent during the 1970s.

 16

Numerous empirical studies explored various measures on economic segregation and

presented diverse results. Applying index of dissimilarity (D) to variables that serve as proxies

for social class is a popular way to measure economic segregation and are often used by most

pre-1987 researchers, such as Ducan and Ducan (1955b), Erbe (1975), and Farley (1977). For

computation purpose this measure requires the variables to be broken down into discrete

categories. However, changes in the social meaning of these categories over time complicate

longitudinal comparisons of economic segregation based on these variables (Jargowsky 1996).

For example, being a high-school graduate means less in social and economic terms than it

used to.

On the contrary, household income offers greater comparability over time once inflation

is taken into account. Massey and Eggers (1990) applied the index of dissimilarity to the

income distribution. To compare interclass segregation for Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and

Asians, they use census tract data from 1970 and 1980 for the 50 largest standard metropolitan

statistical areas (SMSAs) plus 10 others with large numbers of Hispanics. They defined four

social classes based upon specific income thresholds: poverty income, lower-middle class,

upper-middle class, and affluent; then for each racial and ethnic group, they computed the six

pair-wise indices of dissimilarity among the four social classes and averaged these indices to

come up with a final aggregate measure. Based on this analysis, they found that interclass

segregation among Blacks increased over the 1970s in an often quite sharp manner, while

declines in interclass segregation for Whites, Hispanics, and Asians. These findings generally

confirmed Wilson’s hypothesis that Black segregation by income increased between 1970 and

1980 (Wilson 1987). Nevertheless, Jargowsky (1996) pointed out several flaws of this

measurement. First, the cutoff points between income classes are unavoidably arbitrary.
 17

Second, income is a continuous variable, and collapsing it into four categories discards

information. Third, and the most important, this measure confounds changes in the income

distribution with changes in spatial organization because this measure is not independent of the

mean and variance of the income distribution.

Some other more advanced measures, such as the entropy index, could easily handle

multiple categories, but is still affected by the shifts in the underlying distribution that change

the meaning of the categories (Jargowsky 1996). Another possible measure is the Gini

coefficient of segregation. However, as White (1987) pointed out, although Gini coefficient is a

good measure of economic segregation, the computation involved is complicated and difficult.

The correlation ratio, which is also called as the eta-squared or the segregation statistic,

has been utilized to measure segregation as well (Bell 1954; Zoloth 1976; Farley 1977; Schnare

1980). In the case of dichotomous variables, the correlation ratio is equivalent to the

asymmetric intergroup contact index (or, exposure index, P*) after standardizing the latter for

the underlying population proportions of the groups being compared (Duncan and Duncan

1955a; White 1986). Yet compared with P*, the correlation ratio could easily extend to

polytomous variables and is particularly attractive for continuous characteristics such as

income and education (White 1986).

By applying the correlation ratio to income, Jargowsky (1996) developed the

Neighborhood Sorting Index (NSI) as a measure of economic segregation. The NSI can be

defined as:
 18

( )
N
2
hn y n − y
n =1
σ H
NSI = N =
σH
(y )
H
2
i −y
i =1

where y is household income, i indexes households, n indexes neighborhoods, hn is the number

of households in neighborhood n, and H and N are the total number of households and

neighborhoods respectively. As in most segregation studies, Jargowsky (1996) used census

tracts as proxies of neighborhoods. As the formula above illustrated, the square of NSI is just

the between-tract variance over the total variance of household income.

The Neighborhood Sorting Index is the correlation ratio with respect to the distribution

of income across neighborhoods. In contrast to methods of using the index of dissimilarity

measuring economic segregation, NSI treats income as truly continuous and not a set of

categories in its computation. NSI also has an intuitive interpretation in terms of the income

distribution. As indicated by Jargowsky (1996), each household in a metropolitan area has an

income, and the distribution of household incomes has a mean and a standard deviation. Also

each household is located in a neighborhood. Each neighborhood has a mean income, and the

distribution of households by the mean income of their neighborhood has a mean and a

standard deviation too. NSI is simply the ratio of these two different standard deviations. In a

hypothetical case that all neighborhoods have exactly the same mean income, there would be

no economic segregation; then the standard deviation of the neighborhood distribution is zero,

and NSI would be zero as well. At the other extreme, suppose all households live in

neighborhoods that have mean incomes identical to their own incomes, then the standard

deviation of the neighborhood distribution would be identical to the standard deviation of the
 19

household distribution, and NSI would be one. Thus, the value of NSI varies between 0 and 1.

Values close to 0 represent low levels of economic segregation, and values close to 1 indicate

high levels of income segregation.

More important, the standard deviation ratio base of NSI discussed above allows it

implicitly control for the shifts in the underlying income distribution of household income,

which is the most desirable advantage of this measurement compared to other economic

segregation proxies. Additionally, NSI also controls for income inequality because it is

expressed as a percentage of total income variance (Jargowsky 1996). Nevertheless, this index

still has few disadvantages. As all other correlation ratio-based measures, NSI is essentially

aspatial (Massey and Denton 1988). Put a different way, NSI can not capture some important

physical dimensions of segregation, such as clustering and centralization. Besides, despite

theoretically straightforward, the actual calculation of this index is particularly complicated due

to the data limitations (Jargowsky 1996).

Utilizing NSI, Jargowsky (1996) found relatively low levels of economic segregation

among US metropolitan areas in 1970s and 1980s; this finding is consistent to the results form

previous studies regardless of the measured employed. Despite the low levels, however, he

found a pronounced trend toward increasing economic segregation, which is a substantially

different result from past research. The NSI values for Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics all

increased steadily between 1970 and 1980 and again between 1980 and 1990. During the two

decades, Blacks experienced the largest increases: the NSI increased more than 40 percent

between 1970 and 1990. Furthermore, Jarwgosky (1996) claimed that the trend toward greater

economic segregation was remarkably widespread. For instance, in the 1980s, 108 out of the

111 (about 97.3 percent) metropolitan areas in US had an increase in NSI among Blacks. For
 20

Whites, the NSI increased in 253 out of 318 metropolitan areas (about 79.6 percent); and for

Hispanics, the NSI increased in 39 out of 49 (about 79.6 percent) US metropolitan areas.

2.3 Interrelationship of racial and economic segregation

A rich body of empirical work on the interrelationship of racial and economic

segregation has been done. Much of the research has focused on the “social distance”

hypothesis and the “assimilation” hypothesis. These two hypotheses are closely related but

conceptually distinct (Jargowsky 1996). The social distance hypothesis indicates that the degree

of spatial separation between racial groups is hypothesized as a direct function of the social

distance between them (Kantrowitz 1973). Based on this hypothesis, racial or ethnic residential

segregation is “positively associated with differences between groups” (Massey 1981:642). In

contrast, the assimilation hypothesis emphasizes spatial integration between upwardly-mobile

ethnic minorities and majority population (Massey 1981). The hypothesis asserts that as time

goes by, the original language and culture barriers between racial groups will be weakened, and

successful individuals will “move out and eventually find their places in business and in the

professions” (Park 1926). The point is, as Park (1926) argued, that “change of occupation,

personal success or failure – change of economic and social status, in short – tend to be

registered in changes of location.” Therefore, as assimilation occurs, spatial segregation of

high-status minorities from the majority should decrease, and thus economic segregation within

the minority group should increase (Jargowsky 1996).

Empirical research has not always been supportive of the assimilation hypothesis. Erbe

(1975), for example, focused on the issue of socioeconomic segregation by social class within

racial groups in the Chicago SMSA by using P* on census 1970 data. Three relevant measures

of socioeconomic status were chosen: male occupation, education of adult male and family
 21

income. She found that a middle-class Black person was much more likely to encounter in his

neighborhood adults in lower manual occupations than a middle-class White person. The

educational composition of the neighborhood of most highly educated Black person was

approximately comparable to that of a White high school drop-out. As to income segregation,

high income Blacks were much less isolated from low income Blacks than high income Whites

were from low income Whites. For example, White families with incomes over $25,000 lived

in tracts where 19 percent of the families had similar incomes and additional 31 percent had

incomes between $15,000 and $25,000. In other words, half the White families surrounding

“rich” Whites had incomes over $15,000. On the contrary, a Black family with an income

exceeding $25,000 lived in a tract where only 23 percent of the Black families made over

$15,000. Therefore she concluded that “middle-class Blacks live in much closer propinquity

with the lower class than do middle-class Whites, simply because the Black lower class is

proportionally larger than the White lower class.”

Farley (1977) measured the extent of socioeconomic residential segregation between

Blacks and Whites in urbanized areas of the United States in 1970. He used educational

attainment of adult males, occupations of employed males and family income as proxies for

social class, and estimated both the index of dissimilarity and correlation ratios. His major

findings are: first, residential segregation by social class, regardless of the proxy variable used,

was low relative to racial residential segregation. Second, racial segregation was nearly

constant across levels of education, and the findings were largely replicated when occupation of

employed men and family income were used as proxies of social class. These findings do not

support the assimilation hypothesis. Farley concluded that “racial residential segregation is not

primarily a consequence of racial differences in economic status”.

 22

Farley (1991) used family income to estimate class and then measured the residential

segregation, which is measured by the index of dissimilarity, for a specific category from all

others. The comparison of residential segregation of Blacks and Whites on the basis of income

in Chicago Metropolitan Area between 1970 and 1980 showed income made virtually no

difference in the extent of residentially segregation. Moreover, the increasing income among

Blacks in 1980 did not lead to residential integration. However, controlled for family income,

the 1980 segregation levels were about 10 points lower than 1970 levels, reflecting the general

decline in Black-White segregation during the 1970s. Furthermore, by comparing the indices of

dissimilarity of “rich” Blacks with “rich” Whites, and of “rich” Blacks with poor Blacks, Farley

(1991) found that the racial residential segregation was more thorough than class segregation in

both 1970 and 1980, and prosperous Blacks were much less segregated from poor Blacks than

they were from equally prosperous Whites.

Although the empirical work reached quite diverse conclusions by employing various

methodologies, two common points can be summarized from their findings. First, as Massey

(1981) summarized, the social distance and assimilation hypotheses are conceptually distinct

but not contradictory; rather, “they simply address different questions.” In short, social distance

hypothesis tries to “explain systematic variation in the degree of interethnic segregation in

terms of varying social distances between groups,” while assimilation theory is “concerned

with the spatial assimilation of ethnic minorities relative to some majority” (Massey 1981).

Moreover, from a certain point of view, social distance hypothesis can be seen as more focus

on the cross-sectional residential pattern, while assimilation hypothesis seeks to provide

interpretation of changes in residential segregation over time. The empirical work indicated that

social distance hypothesis is useful in predicting cross-sectional pattern of segregation, while

 23

residential assimilation follows from economic advancement has not been supported for

Blacks, but only for Hispanics (Massey 1981).

Second, racial segregation is far more extensive than segregation by social class (Erbe

1975; Farley 1977, 1991; White 1987). Just as Kain (1986) concluded, “virtually every

systematic study has concluded that Black and White differences in income and other

socioeconomic variables account for very little of the current and past patterns of racial

segregation.” In other words, “racial segregation is not an artifact of economic segregation: the

primary organizing principles of the metropolis are race and ethnicity, not social class”

(Jargowsky 1996). This indicates that given the very high level of prevalent racial segregation,

economic segregation must be examined within racial/ethnic groups (Kain 2000).

 CHAPTER 3

CHARACTERIZING SUBURBANIZATION PATTERNS

Metropolitan areas in the United States have been sprawling to a remarkable degree.

Suburbanization has become a very attractive research topic in urban studies recently. In

voluminous literature, inconsistent perspectives have been adopted to understand this

phenomenon, and diverse approaches have been employed to characterize the contemporary

suburbanization patterns.

The following Section 3.1 firstly introduces the inconsistent conceptualizations of

“sprawl” – a pejorative term that describes certain patterns of suburbanization existing in

literature. Then Section 3.2 discusses the comprehensive definition of suburbanization from a

land development perspective and the advantages and drawbacks of the composite sprawl index

proposed by Galster et al. (2001).

Many other scholars suggest the contemporary suburbanization needs to be understood

as more than only a land use aesthetic. Beyond just a fixed set of characteristics of a region’s

housing stock, this phenomenon should be understood as a characterization of the metropolitan

area’s growth over time that is driven by a number of political, economic, and social forces in

this society. Section 3.3 thus discusses suburbanization form this uneven development

perspective.

Based upon this perspective, in this study, the contemporary suburbanization patterns

are characterized by six specific indicators instead of treated as a monolith and defined as a

24
 25

comprehensive definition or a composite index. The last section – Section 3.4 – introduces

these indicators: the urban density gradient, the population density, the relatively rapid growth

of the peripheral areas, the homogeneity of new growth, the exclusivity of local zoning, and the

inaccessibility of jobs; and discusses the theoretical relationship between each of them and

economic segregation.

3.1 Sprawling literature on characterizing recent suburbanization patterns

The suburbanization process in US has been going on for centuries. According to Berry

and Kasarda (1977: 180), this urban development process can be defined as “the enlargement

and spread of a functionally integrated population over an increasingly wider expanse of

territory”. More recently, suburbanization often bears a new name as “sprawl”, which usually

inherits various negative connotations. From a certain perspective, “sprawl” can be viewed as a

pejorative term that describes certain patterns of contemporary suburbanization. Despite large

quantity of studies, it is still difficult to find a consistent characterization of these contemporary

suburbanization patterns; instead, numerous claims and counter-claims about “sprawl” are

found in current literature.

“Sprawl” is frequently defined by one or more examples of scattered or low-density

growth patterns of metropolitan areas. For instance, Los Angeles and Atlanta frequently serve

as typical examples in such case (Geddes 1997). Ad hoc examples often express an aesthetic

judgment: “sprawl” is ugly development. For example, Clawson (1962: 94) described “sprawl”

as the “rapid spread of suburbs across the previously rural landscape, tendency to discontinuity,

large closely settled areas intermingled haphazardly with unused areas”. Some other statements

are even harsher. They criticize “sprawl” as unplanned and illogical, dehumanizing, and

socially isolating. For instance, Kunstler (1993) denounced this type of development for
 26

producing “jive-plastic commuter tract-home wastelands” that are a “wasteful, toxic,

agoraphobic-inducing spectacle”.

Furthermore, in many other studies, “sprawl” is recognized as the cause of certain

unwanted externalities, such as traffic congestion (Downs 1999), environmental contamination

(Sierra Club 1998), the mismatch between jobs and housing (Orfield 1997), local fiscal

disparities (Burchell et al. 1998), and civic alienation (Popenoe 1979). For instance, low-

density residential land development patterns are inherently difficult to serve with public

transportation in a cost-effective manner, and the resulting heavy reliance on individual

automobiles causes air pollution, traffic congestion, and land consumed by highway

construction (Jargowsky 2002). Also, “sprawl” is often described as a consequence of

something else. For example, Downs (1998) and Black (1996) argued that “sprawl” occurs as a

consequence of the fragmentation of control over land use in metropolitan areas.

In addition, “sprawl” is often characterized as certain existing patterns of land

development, such as low density (Lockwood 1999), leapfrogging (Harvey and Clark 1965),

large-lot single-family residential (Popenoe 1979), physical separation of land use (Cervero

1991), strip commercial (Black 1996) and non-compact (Gordon and Richardson 1997). For

example, Ewing (1997) defined sprawl as “the spread-out, skipped-over development that

characterizes the non-central city metropolitan areas and non-metropolitan areas of the United

States”. He even vividly portrayed the image of sprawl as “one- or two-story, single-family

residential development on lots ranging in size from one-third to one acre, accompanied by

strip commercial centers and industrial parks, also two stories or less in height and with a

similar amount of land takings”. Finally, some researchers suggest that “sprawl” represents a
 27

stage in the development process rather than a static condition; or, it represents some range on a

development pattern continuum (Ewing 1997; Harvey and Clark 1965).

The above statements are just few representatives in a long list of different approaches

of characterizing contemporary suburbanization patterns. The term “sprawl” is one name for

many conditions. “Sprawl” has been denounced on aesthetic, efficiency, equity, and

environmental grounds and defended on choice, equality, and economic grounds; it has become

“the metaphor of choice for the shortcomings of the suburbs and the frustrations of central

cities” (Galster et al. 2001, 12: 681).

3.2 The land use pattern perspective and composite sprawl index approach

The inconsistent and even contradictory notions of “sprawl” do not provide a clear

picture of the current patterns of metropolitan development. To facilitate research on the causes

and consequences of suburbanization patterns and develop policy judgments, Galster et al.

(2001) proposed a comprehensive definition of the contemporary suburbanization patterns (or

“sprawl”) from a land development perspective, and developed a composite index of “sprawl”

that can be empirically operationalized and compared across a large number of urbanized areas.

By their characterization, “sprawl” is a pattern of land use in an urbanized area that

exhibits low levels of some combination of eight distinct, objective dimensions: density,

continuity, concentration, clustering, centrality, nuclearity, mixed uses, and proximity. If each

dimension of land use pattern is placed on a continuum, the lower the level, the greater the

extent of “sprawl” on that dimension; urbanized areas with development patterns that score low

on all dimensions experience more “sprawl” than others. This conceptualization understands

“sprawl” as a multidimensional phenomenon, and indicates the possibility that there can be

different types of “sprawl”, consisting of different combinations of these dimensions. It also

 28

suggests the possibility of defining “sprawl” as a process of development by looking at changes

in patterns of land use over time, particularly at the periphery.

Based upon the conceptual definition, Galster et al. (2001) selected thirteen large urban

areas1 from different regions of the country and conducted a prototype test of their definition,

for only housing sprawl. More specifically, they computed a Z score for each of the thirteen

urbanized areas (UAs) on each of the six dimensions (density, concentration, clustering,

centrality, nuclearity and proximity). Then they added the Z scores for each UA across all six

dimensions to obtain a composite sprawl index. Some encouraging results that are consistent

with their firsthand knowledge of these areas, as well as the conventional wisdom, are found

from this prototype test. For instance, the urbanized areas with the greatest degree of sprawl (or

the lowest score on the composite index) were Atlanta, followed by Miami, Detroit, and

Denver. The urbanized areas with the lowest degree of sprawl were all older areas in the

Northeast and Midwest: the New York area had the least sprawl, followed by Philadelphia,

Chicago, and Boston. This comports with the pre-20th-century development of their cores.

Atlanta and Miami represent the epitomes of so-called “wet south region sprawl”, where 20th-

century growth has been unconstrained by the aridity of the region.

Overall, Galster et al. (2001) concluded that their approach makes it possible to inform

policy far more effectively since the conceptual clarity about the dimensions of “sprawl” and

the ultimate operationalization of these concepts.

Nevertheless, this methodology still has several limitations. First, even though the eight

distinct dimensions they defined try to cover the aspects of sprawl as completely as possible, at
 29

the same time, the composite index is far from transparent. Although the ranking of urban

sprawl indicators may help to compare the relative sprawl degree among metropolitan areas,

the numerical value of composite sprawl index itself lacks intuitive mathematical meaning, nor

can it be interpreted easily. For example, Galster et al. (2001) presented the composite index for

New York was 8.90, while for Chicago it was 2.97. Can we therefore conclude that the sprawl

level in New York is as less as one-third that in Chicago? Probably not.

More importantly, in their prototype test, each of the dimensions is equally weighted in

calculating the composite index. To address this point, Galster et al. (2001, 12: 708) suggested

that “using statistical techniques such as factor analysis to determine the extent to which

dimensions are associated most closely with others and to develop indices that combine some

or all of the dimensions”. However, factor analysis, as well as any other pure statistical

operation, has no inherent analytical logic by itself. The factors are determined by patterns of

correlations in the data, and these correlations may be driven by things other than sprawl, such

as land characteristics, business cycle effects, and so on. Therefore any “objective” indicator

coming from such an operation may or may not measure sprawl per se. An understanding of

suburbanization that incorporates several identifiable characteristics of sprawl, and focuses

more on access to opportunity and the social mobility dimension, may be more useful for

drawing policy implications than summarizing many dissimilar measures into a single number.

1 The thirteen large urban areas included in Galster et al.’s prototype test are: New York,
Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, Washington DC, San Francisco, Houston, Dallas,
Denver, Detroit, Miami, and Atlanta.
 30

3.3 Understanding recent suburbanization from an uneven development perspective

Many other scholars suggest the contemporary suburbanization patterns (or “sprawl”)

need to be understand as more than just a land use aesthetic or environmental problem.

Conceptualization of this phenomenon should include links to urban uneven development,

racial and economic inequality, and power and politics. Beyond just a fixed set of

characteristics of a region’s housing stock, the contemporary suburbanization process should be

understand as a characterization of the metropolitan area’s growth over time (Dreier,

Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom 2001; Jargowsky 2002; Shlay 2002; Squires 2002).

Squires (2002) argued that the spatial patterns of urban development are not only

encouraged by technological innovation such as modern transportation, but are also rooted in a

context of substantial economic restructuring. Decentralization since the 1970s, which often

was accompanied by the loss of thousands of manufacturing jobs and the growth of both high-

paid producer service industries and low-wage personal service positions, has fueled the

uneven development of metropolitan areas. More recently increasing globalization of the

economy, whereby production is decentralized while control and administration are centralized,

has furthered these trends. These economic shifts have stimulated the development of

downtown office space, convention centers, and cultural facilities where relatively well-off

professionals work and play, and the suburban communities where they tend to live. As

downtown and outlying suburban development has proceeded, many urban neighborhoods and

inner-ring suburbs have deteriorated.

Moreover, these spatial and structural changes feed back on each other. Households

with lower incomes and the greatest economic need find it increasingly difficult to afford

housing in suburban communities, where jobs are growing fastest. As jobs become more
 31

distant, it is also more difficult to participate in informal networks through which job

placements are often made. As jobs become harder to find, poverty and the concentration of

poverty increase in urban areas, tax revenues and public services decline, physical conditions

deteriorate and resources leave the community, crime and so-called “underclass behaviors”

increase. These inner-city communities become less attractive to private capital. These cycles

are mutually reinforcing. Thus, suburbanization has always involved both the “pull” of

attractive suburban characteristics and the “push” of undesirable central-city aspects

(Jargowsky 2002). Uneven economic, spatial, and social development are all interrelated pieces

of the metropolitan puzzle (Jargowsky 1996; Wilson 1987, 1996; Massey and Denton 1993).

Based upon this uneven development perspective, scholars often argue that the

contemporary suburbanization patterns have been closely associated with emerging income

inequality, concentrated poverty, and economic segregation problems in US metropolitan areas.

Disparity between central cities along with their inner-ring suburbs and the newer outer-ring

suburbs in many metropolitan areas are growing (Orfield 1997). For instance, in 1960, per

capita income in cities was 105 percent of their surrounding suburbs. By 1990, that ratio fell to

84 percent (Cisneros 1993). Although during the 1980s both central cities and suburbs

experienced income increases, the income of suburban residents increased at a higher rate

(Cisneros 1993). Besides the growing income inequality that is associated with the spatial

developments, poverty has become much more concentrated. For example, between 1970 and

1990, the number of census tracts in which the poverty rate was 40 percent or greater and the

number of people living in such tracts doubled (Jargowsky 1996).

Furthermore, as suburban development occurs in US, it is linked very closely to

economic segregation. In a study across all U.S. metropolitan areas, Jargowsky (2002) found a
 32

monotonic relationship between the decade of construction of the neighborhood’s median

housing unit and the mean income of the households that occupy those units. Neighborhoods

with the most recent median year built that mainly located in the fringes of the metropolitan

area had the highest mean income. Controlling for median year built, central city

neighborhoods have consistently lower mean incomes than the comparable cohort of suburban

neighborhoods. Within suburbs, the standard deviation of the neighborhood mean incomes

generally decreases as the median year built increase; as expected, the lowest values of

standard deviation are found in the newest neighborhoods. Thus, the mean increases and the

variance decreases the more recently the suburb was built. Using another alternative measure of

the variability of neighborhood mean incomes – the coefficient of variation (CV) – he revealed

fundamentally consistent results. For instance, in the suburbs, the CV is 40 percent lower in the

newest neighborhoods compared with the oldest. Clearly, the newer suburban neighborhoods

are more homogeneous than the older cohorts of neighborhoods.

Additionally, many scholars pointed out that these development patterns are not

inevitable results of technology improvements and economic growth, and they do not flow

naturally or purely from free market forces (Dreier, Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom 2001; Squires

2002). Markets are real and people do make choices; however, markets operate within, and

individual choices are constrained by, public policy and private sector decision-making. For

example, tax policies have long favored new development in outlying suburban communities

over the reinvestment in older urban neighborhoods (Dreier, Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom 2001;

Squires 1994). Exclusionary zoning laws by most suburban municipalities, racial steering by

real estate agents, and redlining by financial institutions created and continue to reinforce
 33

segregated housing patterns (Dreier, Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom 2001; Jackson 1985; Orfield

1997; Squires 1994).

Overall, suburbanization is not only a land development pattern nor a pure spatial

phenomenon; rather, it should be understand as an intertwined piece of the larger uneven

development picture that has been driven by a number of political, economic, and social forces

in this society. The contemporary suburbanization patterns closely associated with a number of

social problems that have long plagued urban communities, such as income inequality,

concentration of poverty, and economic segregation. Certainly suburban development is driven

by the dynamics of demand and supply in the housing market; nevertheless, it also has been

influenced by public policies that pose essential constraints on individuals’ opportunities and

choices.

3.4 Charactering the contemporary suburbanization patterns by six indicators

In this study, instead of treating suburban development as a monolith and constructing a

comprehensive definition or a composite index, I identify six specific indicators to characterize

the contemporary suburbanization patterns based on the uneven development perspective and

relevant literature, and test their effects on economic segregation. By doing so, first of all, it

makes the interpretation easier. Also, it allows me to make specific policy implications later on.

These indicators of suburbanization are the urban density gradient, the population density, the

relatively rapid growth of the periphery, the homogeneity of new growth, the exclusivity of

local zoning, and the inaccessibility of jobs.

The urban density gradient has served as a measure of suburbanization for a long

time. Clark (1951) estimated exponential density functions for a variety of metropolitan areas
 34

and years, and observed a strong tendency for density functions to flatten through time. The

exponential density function can be written as:

d x = d 0 e − bx

where d x is population density, x is distance from the metropolitan center, d 0 is density at or

near the metropolitan center, and b (larger than 0 usually) is the density gradient. As the natural

logarithm of density is used, the equation becomes:

ln d x = ln d 0 − bx

The urban density gradient describes how the population per square mile of an area

drops off with distance from the center of the metropolitan area (Berry et al. 1974). It is a rate

at which population density decreases as distance from an area’s center increases (Schiller

2004). The density gradient can reveal the extent to which the spatial structure envisioned by

the monocentric city model actually prevails in a given metropolitan area, and changes in the

density gradient can reveal how centralization has changed in a given area over time (Schiller

2004). Numerous classic estimates of density gradients of metropolitan areas around the world

show that centralization has been declining for the past 200 years (Berry et al. 1974; Berry and

Gillard 1977; Berry and Horton 1970; Edmonston 1975; Mills 1972). Lack of centralization,

which is indicated by a density gradient with a low numerical value, is often cited as evidence

of suburbanization (Schiller 2004). A metropolitan area is said to become more suburbanized as

the urban density gradient lessens (Mills 1991). Thus, the expected effect of the first

suburbanization indicator in this study – the urban density gradient – on economic segregation

should be negative.

Density is one of the most widely used measures of suburbanization. Despite the revival

of inner cities in 1980s, population density in the center areas of metropolises had continuously
 35

diminished as people relocating to outlying areas (Berry et al, 1974; Carruthers 2003;

Edmonston, Goldberg, and Mercer 1985). Well-known images of urban sprawl, suburban

affluence, and central city decline have led many planners and policy makers to conclude that

low-density development patterns promote racial and income segregation. However, the direct

effects of density on income segregation remain unclear. On the one hand, increased density

might lead to a fishbowl effect, where density crams people together, and creates more

opportunities for mixing housing types and incomes within a small area; on the other hand,

high densities also cause the residential sorting effect, where density leads to intense

competition over urban space, and may end up contributing to income segregation rather than

ameliorating it. A study by Pendall and Carruthers (2003) found density affected economic

segregation in a non-linear fashion: income segregation rose as density increased, but in a

decreasing rate. This finding basically confirmed the two simultaneous influences of density on

economic segregation.

Numerous studies focusing on prosperity of suburbs and central-city declines indicate

that the relatively rapid growth at the peripheral areas of a city center is one significant

pattern of contemporary suburbanization. In 1960s, the nation’s population was roughly one-

third urban, one-third rural, and one-third suburban. By 1990, suburbanites were close to half

the population (Schneider 1992) and in 1992, for the first time, they accounted for a majority of

the nation’s voters (Dreier 2000). In addition, while in recent years several downtown areas

have experienced a population increase and project more in the near future (The Brooking

Institute Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and the Fannie Mae Foundation 1998), the

overwhelming continuing pattern is the exodus of households from central cities to the suburbs

(Squires 2002). In 1996 alone, about 2.7 million people left a city for a suburb whereas just
 36

800,000 made the opposite move (Katz and Bradley 1999). Between 1970 and 2000, the

suburban share of the total metropolitan population increased consistently from 55.1 percent to

62.2 percent (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2000).

Furthermore, during this process, cities tended to gain lower-income residents and lose

upper-income residents (Squires 2002), and the concentrated poverty doubled between 1970

and 1990 (Jargowsky 1996). As the unevenly developments in suburbs and central cities may

exacerbate geospatial separation of population along income lines, the expected effect of this

suburbanization indicator on economic segregation should be positive. Put it a different way,

metropolitan areas with more rapid population growth at the peripheral suburbs relative to the

city centers are expected to have higher level of economic segregation.

The exclusivity of local zoning regimes serves as the fourth suburbanization indicator

in this study. The wide latitude and autonomy granted to local governments in US often

encourage local jurisdictions to engage in a beggar-thy-neighbor competition with one another

(Dreier, Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom 2001). In the competition for favored residents and

investments, local governments use zoning regulations, which divide localities into districts, or

zones, to segregate land uses and to limit access of potential unwanted new residents with

income below the median for their jurisdiction or more requirements for costly services. To

protect property values, local zoning regulations often favor some kinds of housing, such as

single-family housing, over other “noxious” land uses such as apartment buildings (Wright

1983). Local zoning laws also allow municipalities to regulate the location and minimum lot

size for various kinds of housing (Dreier, Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom 2001). Especially,

affluent suburbs have used “snob zoning” to limit housing for the poor. For instance, Many

suburbs set minimum lot sizes (such as one-half acre per home) that increase the cost of
 37

housing and rule out the construction of dense housing – not just apartment buildings, but also

bungalow-style single-family homes (Mallach 1984). Intentionally or unintentionally, the local

exclusionary zoning regulations, which are rooted in the fragmented arrangements of local

jurisdictions in this country, help isolate the higher-income households from the lower-income

families (Dreier, Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom 2001). Thus, the expected influence of this

indicator on economic segregation should be positive.

Another indicator of suburbanization is the homogeneity of new growth. White and

affluent flight from city centers often entailed relocating to newly developed, low-density areas

at the urban fringe, where land use regulations enforce socioeconomic homogeneity and ensure

the highest possible quality of public services (Carruthers 2003; Squires 2002). The stock aerial

photograph, symbolic of suburban conformity, shows miles after miles of virtually identical

households (Jargowsky 2002). Usually protected by zoning regulations, these homogeneous

new developments in suburban areas – no matter they are planned or unplanned, ugly or

beautiful, high density or low density – are “exclusionary” by their very nature, because

households with lower incomes typically find these housing units are difficult to afford (Dreier,

Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom 2001; Goldsmith and Blakely 1992; Orfield 1997). “While nobody

expects that the poor will live in the same neighborhoods as the rich”, as Jargowsky (2002: 58)

argued, “the aspect of suburban development that increases economic segregation is that entire

sectors of the metropolitan are devoted exclusively to one type of housing”. Therefore,

metropolitan areas with more homogeneous newly developed suburban neighborhoods are

expected to have higher level of economic segregation.

The last indicator characterizing the contemporary suburbanization patterns is the

inaccessibility of jobs. A voluminous literature documented the loss of job access for poor
 38

central-city residents as firms and industries relocated to suburbs (Dreier, Mollenkopf and

Swanstrom 2001). For instance, the well-known “spatial mismatch” hypothesis argues “sprawl”

widened the gap between where people live and where jobs are located; the suburbanization

process interacts with racial segregation in housing to create barriers to job access for low-

income people (Kain 1968; Ihlanfeldt and Sjoquist 1998). This situation contributes to the

continuous income segregation within metropolitan areas and the worsen concentration of

central city poverty. Measured by the length of average daily commutes of central city

residents, this indicator is expected to be positively associated with the economic segregation.

In other words, metropolitan areas with longer commute times of their central city residents are

recognized as more suburbanized and anticipated to have higher level of economic segregation.
 CHAPTER 4

MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

4.1 Conceptual model

Economic segregation is expressed as a function of suburbanization indicators,

metropolitan context, structural economic characteristics, and social distance and inequality. As

shown in Figure 4-1, this model investigates the impact of suburbanization on economic

segregation by controlling for three other types of factors that may also have important effects

on economic segregation and may be correlated with measures of suburbanization.

Suburbanization indicators

Metropolitan context
Economic
Structural economic segregation
characteristics

Social distance & inequality

Figure 4-1. The conceptual model

As discussed thoroughly in Chapter 3, previous literature suggests that suburbanization

has inseparable connections with, and may even has nurtured, economic segregation in this

country. In this study, suburbanization is characterized by six indicators: the urban density

gradient, the population density, the relatively rapid growth of the periphery, the homogeneity

of new development, the exclusivity of local zoning, and inaccessibility of jobs. Since the

39
 40

theoretical relationship between each indicator and economic segregation has been elaborated

in Chapter 3, Section 4.2 in this Chapter directly summarizes the hypotheses regarding the

direct effects of these indicators on economic segregation.

Other metropolitan characteristics, which may have significant influences on economic

segregation and considerable correlations with the suburbanization indicators, should also be

taken into consideration to minimize the potential omitted variable bias. Variables related to

metropolitan context, structural economic characteristics, and social distance and inequality are

included based upon findings from other research. The theoretical relationships between the

variables characterizing these aspects and economic segregation are briefly discussed in the

following three sub-sections, and then summarized as hypotheses in Section 4.2.

4.1.1 Metropolitan context

Numerous studies indicate that many features of metropolitan labor and housing

markets may have impacts on the extent to which high- and low-income individuals are

segregated from other members of their own race/ethnic group. Based upon findings from other

research, the first set of factors – metropolitan context – is characterized in this study by

variables such as division, aged population ratio, old housing stock ratio, large-size household

ratio, recent in-migration rate, internal turnover rate, total population scale, and population

growth rate.

Division is employed as a control variable considering the regional differences of many

metropolitan features. Metropolitan areas with more elderly residents are likely to have less

economic segregation because people in this group are less mobile, even though they have

accumulated wealth (Pendall and Carruthers 2003). Economic segregation may be lower for

metropolitan areas with more old housing stock, since there are usually more neighborhoods
 41

with mixed housing types available (Pendall and Carruthers 2003). Compared to smaller

households, larger households are less mobile and not able to quickly respond to and reflect

rapid shifts in metropolitan economic patterns, rents, and housing prices. Therefore,

metropolitan areas with more large-size households should have less economic segregation

(Pendall and Carruthers 2003).

Considering local housing market dynamics, studies suggest that a rapid influx of new

households put pressure on the housing market and will reduce economic segregation, at least

in short run (Jargowsky 1996). Thus metropolitan areas with higher recent in-migration rate

should have lower economic segregation. On the contrary, as a high rate of internal turnover in

the housing market may advance ecological processes, metropolitan areas with more relocating

residents should have higher economic segregation (Jargowsky 1996).

The total population scale controls for the size of metropolitan area, which is expected

to have a positive effect on economic segregation since large metropolitan areas may have

greater internal differentiation of neighborhoods than do small ones (Hoch 1987). The relative

change in total population over the decade is also included; however, this variable may have a

complicated direct impact on economic segregation. On the one hand, faster population growth

may put more pressure on local housing market in the short run and reduce economic

segregation; on the other hand, metropolitan areas with faster population growth will become

bigger, encompass greater differentiation of neighborhoods, and have higher economic

segregation level (Hoch 1987; White 1987).

Furthermore, there are many other idiosyncratic features of metropolitan areas, such as

geophysical configuration, room for expansion, accumulated housing stock, historical

ownership patterns, institutional arrangements, information networks, and so on, that may
 42

influence economic segregation. These largely invariant features are all implicitly controlled by

the fixed-effects estimation procedures discussed in Chapter 8.

4.1.2 Structural Economic Characteristics

The second set of factors targets on the local opportunity structure, or, the structural

local economic characteristics. Mean household income, percentage change of mean household

income, manufacturing employment ratio, and management and professional related occupation

ratio are included as the second set of control variables.

Overall mean household income of a metropolitan area may have a nonlinear impact on

economic segregation (Jargowsky 1996). Also, the percentage change in household income

over the decade may have an ambiguous effect on economic segregation. An increase in mean

household income may come about in a variety ways; for example, the wealthy households

may become wealthier, or the poor residents may be catching up. The effect of a change in

mean household income would likely depend on the specific pattern generating the change.

Moreover, economic restructuring has affected various features of urban spatial

structure (Frey and Speare 1988; Kasarda 1985; Kleinberg 1995; Squires 2002), and it may also

affect economic segregation within racial/ethnic groups. A smaller share of jobs in

manufacturing and a growing share of jobs in the management and professional related

occupations may increase income inequality, as well as economic segregation by drawing

skilled minority individuals away from traditional minority enclaves to jobs in dispersed

locations (Jargowsky 1996). Studies show that deindustrialization has increased inner-city

stress (Galster, Mincy and Tobin 1997), even as the expansion of knowledge-based industries

has helped ameliorate it (Glaeser 1999). Therefore declines in the manufacturing employment

proportion should increase economic segregation as new firms locate in a more dispersed
 43

pattern with concurrent adjustments in the residence patterns of employees (Jargowsky 1996).

Since rising skill requirements can accentuate social class differences within racial/ethnic

groups, decrease group cohesion, and increase economic segregation within racial/ethnic

communities (Wilson 1980), higher management and professional related occupation ratios

may lead to increased economic segregation.

4.1.3 Social distance and inequality

The final set of control variables, poverty rate within each racial/ethnic group and the

overall gini coefficient, focus on social distance and inequality. The social distance within each

racial/ethnic group is measured by poverty rate. According to middle-class flight hypothesis

(Wilson 1987), a higher poverty rate within a racial/ethnic group should produce an increase in

economic segregation, because it may encourage more privileged group members to isolate

themselves spatially (Massey and Eggers 1993; Jargowsky 1996). Furthermore, rapid increases

in income inequality since the late 1960s may increase both overall residential segregation

between income groups and economic segregation within racial and ethnic groups (Massey and

Eggers 1993). Thus metropolitan areas with larger value in gini coefficient, which is an index

of income inequality, should have higher level of economic segregation.

4.2 Hypotheses

The hypotheses presented below are designed to test the idea that economic segregation

is a function of suburbanization indicators, metropolitan context, structural economic

characteristics, and social distance and inequality.

The first set of hypotheses regards the relationship between economic segregation and

the suburbanization indicators.

 44

Null Hypothesis: There is no relationship between the different levels of economic

segregation and the specified suburbanization indicators.

H1: Economic segregation is higher for metropolitan areas with lower urban

population density gradients.

H2: Economic segregation is affected by the population density in a non-linear fashion.

H3: Economic segregation is higher for metropolitan areas with more local exclusionary

zoning interventions.

H4: Economic segregation is higher for metropolitan areas with more homogenous

neighborhoods that are newly developed.

H5: Economic segregation is higher for metropolitan areas with more inaccessibility of

employment opportunities for their central city residents.

H6: Economic segregation is higher for metropolitan areas with more rapid growth

at their suburban areas relative to their central cities.

The next set of hypotheses regards the relationship between economic segregation and

metropolitan context variables: division, aged population ratio, old housing stock ratio, large-

size household ratio, recent in-migration rate, internal turnover rate, and population growth

rate.

Null Hypothesis: There is no relationship between the different levels of economic

segregation and the specified metropolitan context variables.

H7: Economic segregation varies with divisions.

H8: Economic segregation is lower for metropolitan areas with higher proportions of

aged population.
 45

H9: Economic segregation is lower for metropolitan areas with higher proportions of

older housing stock.

H10: Economic segregation is lower for metropolitan areas with higher proportions of

larger households.

H11: Economic segregation is higher for metropolitan areas with higher proportions of

recent in-migrants.

H12: Economic segregation is higher for metropolitan areas with higher proportions of

internal movers.

H13: Economic segregation is higher for metropolitan areas with more total population.

H14: Economic segregation varies with population growth rate.

The third set of hypotheses regards the relationship between economic segregation and

local structural economic characteristics: mean household income, manufacturing employment

ratio, management and professional related occupation ratio, and percentage change of mean

household income.

Null Hypothesis: There is no relationship between the different levels of economic

segregation and the specified structural economic characteristics.

H15: Economic segregation varies with mean household income.

H16: Economic segregation is lower for metropolitan areas with higher proportions of

people worked in manufacturing industry.

H17: Economic segregation is higher for metropolitan areas with higher proportions of

people engaged in management and professional related occupations.

H18: Economic segregation varies with percentage change of mean household income.
 46

The final set of hypotheses regards the relationship between economic segregation and

the social distance and inequality measurements: poverty rate within each racial/ethnic group

and overall gini coefficient.

Null Hypothesis: There is no relationship between the different levels of economic

segregation and the specified social distance and inequality variables.

H19: Economic segregation is higher for metropolitan areas with higher poverty rates

within racial/ethnic groups.

H20: Economic segregation is higher for metropolitan areas with higher overall gini

coefficients.
 CHAPTER 5

DATA AND METHODOLOGY

5.1 Data sources

To operationalize the model and test the hypotheses, the primary data sources are the

1990 and 2000 US Census summary files. Most of the variables are calculated based upon the

2000 Summary File 3 and the 1990 Summary Tape File 3. The 1990 Summary Tape File 1

provides the housing value information of specified owner-occupied housing units in 1990.

Additionally, individual household income information is extracted from the 5 percent Public

Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) data in 1990 and 2000 for estimating the characteristics of

metropolitan wide income distributions.

5.2 Unit of analysis

The unit of analysis in this study is the metropolitan area. However, there are a number

of different ways of constructing metropolitan areas. According to the Census Bureau’s

classification, metropolitan areas can be classified as metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs)2,

primary metropolitan areas (PMSAs)3, and consolidated metropolitan areas (CMSAs)4. CMSAs

2 An MSA consists of one or more counties that contain a city of 50,000 or more inhabitants, or
contain a Census Bureau defined urban area and have a total population of at least 100,000
(75,000 in New England).
3 Subreas may be defined within an area that meets the requirements to qualify as an MSA and
also has a population of one million or more. The definition of these subareas, called PMSAs,
requires meeting specified statistical criteria and having the support of local option.
4 An area that meets the requirements to qualify as an MSA and also has a population of one
million or more becomes a CMSA if component parts of the area are recognized as PMSAs.
47
 48

are comprised of contiguous PMSAs, such as the Dallas PMSA and the Fort Worth PMSA,

which make up the Dallas-Fort Worth CMSA. Additionally, New England county metropolitan

areas (NECMAs) are county-based alternatives to the city- and town-based MSAs and CMSAs

in the six New England States. In terms of geographic area and population size encompassed,

PMSAs are more comparable to MSAs than other alternatives (Iceland et al, 2002). The

following Table 5-1 illustrates a comparison among MSAs, PMSAs, and CMSAs regarding

their population sizes. Even though both PMSAs and CMSAs encompass larger average

population sizes than MSAs, the national mean population in PMSAs is only about 3 times of

the mean population size in MSAs; in contrast, the national mean population in CMSAs is

almost 14 times of the mean population size in MSAs. Thus in terms of their population sizes,

PMSAs are relatively more similar to MSAs than CMSAs. Besides, a PMSA comprises “a

large urbanized county or a cluster of counties (cities and towns in New England) that

demonstrate strong internal economic and social links in addition to close ties with the central

core of the larger area” (Geographic Reference Manual of the U.S. Census 2000: 13-2). Hence

this study defines both MSAs and PMSAs as metropolitan areas. To allow comparison over

time, 2000 MSAs and PMSAs geographic boundaries are applied consistently to calculate both

1990 and 2000 variables (Jargowsky 2003). Overall this 2000 metropolitan area set includes

258 MSAs and 73 PMSAs.

Table 5-1. National mean, minimum, and maximum

values of metropolitan population in 2000 by
different metropolitan area classifications
Mean Minimum Maximum
MSAs 451777 57813 4112198
PMSAs 1498948 103833 9519338
CMSAs 6079065 1689572 21199865
 49

Census tracts, which are relatively small units that are defined consistently across the

country, serve as proxies of neighborhoods to build up the metropolitan area level analysis in

this study. Generally, a census tract contains 1,000 to 8,000 people, with an optimum size of

4,000 people (Glossary of Basic Geographic and Repated Terms of U.S. Census 2000). Census

tracts are small statistical subdivisions of a county with generally stable boundaries and

homogeneous population characteristics, economic status, and living conditions at the time they

are established (Ricketts and Sawhill 1988), and thus often serve as neighborhood proxies in

most research on neighborhoods and segregation. Due to population growth and decline, census

tracts boundaries are sometimes adjusted; for instance, usually the Census Bureau split census

tracts as the population grows too large. In this analysis, contemporaneous tract boundaries are

used rather than constant boundaries. In other words, I use the 1990 census tract definitions in

analyzing the 1990 data and the 2000 boundaries for the 2000 data. It is crucial to use

contemporaneous instead of matched boundaries in calculating neighborhood level rates,

because the constant boundaries approach results in smaller average neighborhood population

in earlier years, thus creating a bias towards more extreme values5.

5.3 Operationalizing variables

Based upon the conceptual model introduced in Chapter 4, the dependent variable in

this study is economic segregation; the independent variables include the suburbanization

indicators that serve as major explanatory variables, and other groups of control variables that

5 This is known as the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP), which is a potential source of
error that can affect spatial studies that utilize aggregate data sources (Unwin 1996). Briefly
speaking, when data are presented using totals for arbitrary areas such as administrative units,
the patterns that they show may be simply the effect of the administrative units rather than
genuine patterns among the underlying population.
 50

focus on three important urban aspects: metropolitan context, structural economic

characteristics, and social distance and inequality. These factors need to be controlled since

they are correlated with suburbanization and yet may have independent effects on economic

segregation. The following sub-sections discuss how these variables are operationalized in

detail.

5.3.1 Measuring economic segregation

Economic segregation is measured by the Neighborhood Sorting Index (NSI). As

introduced in Chapter 2, NSI simply is the ratio of between-tract standard deviation of tract

mean household income and the total standard deviation of household income. Values of NSI

vary in the range of 0 and 1; values closer to 1 indicate higher levels of economic segregation

(Jargowsky 1996).

Among alternative measures of economic segregation, NSI is chosen to use in this study

because of its certain desirable properties. Based upon deviations from the mean household

income, it implicitly controls for the overall income level. It also controls for income inequality

since it is expressed as a percentage of total income variance. Thus, it is a “pure” economic

segregation measure that fully utilizes household income information.

Contrary to other measures based on breaking the income distribution into fixed classes,

such as the index of dissimilarity based on specific income thresholds (Massey and Eggers

1990), NSI is not a statistical artifact that shifts with the shifting of income distribution

(Jargowsky 1996). For example, suppose residents within a metropolitan area did not change

their residential patterns at all during a certain period of time and yet only their income

distribution shifted up, the value of the Massey and Eggers’ index of dissimilarity would

unavoidably change, but the value of NSI will remain the same. Hence, NSI is technically
 51

stable with respect to changes in the mean and variance of the income distribution.

Furthermore, as a correlation ratio-based measure, NSI also has conceptual advantages since it

gives more emphasis to areal units that differ sharply from the mean (Zoloth 1976). From a

policy perspective, NSI is a more suitable measure because often the concern is with the most

highly segregated neighborhoods (Jargowsky 1996).

As discussed in preceding Chapter 2, racial segregation is far more extensive than

segregation by social class in this country (Erbe 1975; Farley 1977, 1991; White 1987); the

primary organizing principles of the US metropolis are race and ethnicity, not income or social

class (Jargowsky 1996). Thus it makes sense to study economic segregation within racial and

ethnic groups. In this study both 1990 and 2000 NSI values are calculated for each

MSA/PMSA within each of the three racial and ethnic groups: non-Hispanic Whites and others,

Blacks, and Hispanics.

In 1997, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) revised the old standards for the

classification of federal data on race and ethnicity6. Race categories in the Census 2000 data are

defined based upon the new standards and are not directly comparable to the ones in 1990

Census. Also there is no practical method to perfectly match these racial and ethnic categories

over time based upon the aggregate data provided in Census. Given this situation, to still allow

6 The old standards for the classification of federal data on race and ethnicity were issued by
OMB in 1977. In these standards, four racial categories were established: American Indian or
Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, and White. In addition, two ethnicity
categories were established: Hispanic origin and Not of Hispanic origin. Considering the
significant changes in the racial and ethnic makeup of U.S. during 20 years, OMB revised the
old standards and announced the new standards in October 1997. Under these new standards
the race categories are: American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Black or African American;
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; White; and Some Other Race. And repondents are
allowed to pick more than one race. There are also two minimum categories for ethnicity:
Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino. Hispanics and Latinos may be of any race.
 52

comparison between 1990 and 2000 and to best serve the purpose of this study, I define three

principal racial and ethnic groups: non-Hispanic Whites and others, Blacks, and Hispanics. For

Census 1990 data, the Black group includes households with a Black householder, and the

Hispanic group comprises households with a householder of Hispanic origin. Then the

difference between the total number of households belonging to these two groups and the

overall total household number regardless race becomes the third group – non-Hispanic Whites

and others. For Census 2000 data, the Black group contains households with a householder who

is Black or African American alone. The Hispanic group consists of households with a

householder who is Hispanic or Latino. Eventually, households with a householder who is

White alone and is not Hispanic or Latino, and households with a householder who is Asian

alone, American Indian and the Alaska Native alone, or Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific

Islander alone, are all combined together and defined as the non-Hispanic Whites and others

group. This configuration of race and ethnic groups provides the best match of inconsistent

categories in the 1990 and 2000 Census data on income by race at the Census tract level7.

Moreover, to capture the patterns of economic segregation over last decade, both 2000

NSI and 1990 NSI for each MSA/PMSA are calculated. Census 2000 SF3 and Census 1990

STF3 data are used to compute the numerator of NSI – the between-tract standard deviation of

tract mean household income. More importantly, since the necessary information about

individual household income are not published by the Bureau of the Census, I use household

income information from the 5 percent PUMS data to estimate the overall standard deviation of

7 Note these racial/ethnic groups are still not strictly equivalents between 1990 and 2000. Also
note that by this method, the counts of non-Hispanic Whites and others, Blacks, and Hispanics
are not unduplicated. That is, the Black figures in both years and the 2000 White and other
figures include some non-White Hispanics, who may be of any race.
 53

individual household income (the denominator of NSI)8. To allow comparison over time,

appropriate inflation adjustment is made for the 1990 NSI calculation9.

Empirical results indicate that the economic segregation, measuring by NSI, declined

from 1990 to 2000. The next chapter (Chapter 6) discusses this observed trend and other

patterns of economic segregation over last decade in detail.

5.3.2 Operationalizing suburbanization indicators

Indicators characterizing suburbanization patterns are the urban population density

gradient, the population density, the exclusivity of local zoning, the homogeneity of new

development, the inaccessibility of jobs, and the relatively rapid growth of the peripheral

suburbs.

The first suburbanization indicator in this study – the urban population density

gradient is estimated based upon the natural logarithm density function (Clark 1951):

ln d x = ln d 0 − bx

where d x is population density, x is distance from the metropolitan center, d 0 is density at or

near the metropolitan center, and b is the density gradient.

8 Individuals in PUMS areas that span MSA/PMSA boundaries were included in all the
spanned MSA/PMSAs, with sample weights adjusted proportional to the population
proportions in the spanned MSA/PMSAs, based on estimates obtained from the Master Area
Block Level Equivalency (MABLE) Geographic Correspondence Engine.
(Source: http://www.oseda.missouri.edu/plue/geocorr/)
9 The 1989 household income information reported in Census 1990 STF3 and PUMS data is
converted into 1999 dollars by multiplying an inflation multiplier of 1.34. Based on the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all urban consumers for all items with a base period of 1982-
84, this multiplier is calculated as 1999 annual CPI (166.6) over 1989 annual CPI (124.0).
 54

Using Census SF3 data, gross population density10 ( d x ) is computed for each tract

within an MSA/PMSA. Often Census Bureau defines multiple central cities in a single

metropolitan area. In such cases, the distance of a census tract’s centroid from the closest

central city is defined as the distance from a neighborhood to the metropolitan center (x),

resulting in a synthetic distance scale. Because of the oblique spheroid shape of the Earth, this

distance is calculated by the Great Circle Distance Formula11. Finally, based upon the tracts’

densities and the distances between tracts and the closest central city, the density gradient (b),

as well as the log of central density ( ln d 0 ), are estimated by regression analyses, for each

MSA/PMSA in both 2000 and 1990. The density gradient is named as ‘DENGRAD’ for

regression analyses discussed in later chapters.

Empirical results show that the density gradients are larger than zero for the vast

majority of US metropolitan areas in both 1990 and 2000; the only exception is Jersey City,

which exists in a continuously urbanized area in the shadow of New York. Thus population

density usually drops off with distance from the center of the metropolitan area in this country,

as many previous studies established. Furthermore, since a metropolitan area is considered to

be more suburbanized as the density gradient lessens (Mills 1991), this indicator is expected to

be negatively associated with the dependent variable.

10 The gross population density is simply defined as total population over total land areas.
11 To apply the Great Circle Distance Formula, the latitude and longitude values of any
centroid are converted from decimal degrees to radians first, then distance between any two
points equals to: 3963.0*arcos[sin(latitude of point1)*sin(latitude of point2) + cos(latitude of
point1)*cos(latitude of point2)*cos(longitude of point2 – longitude of point1)]. This formula
measures distance in miles.
 55

Density serves as the second indicator of suburbanization. In this study, it is simply

measured as the total population over the total land area12 of a certain MSA/PMSA using

Census SF3 data. Empirical calculation shows strong regional differences of urban density

among US metropolitan areas. Density is an average across the whole metropolitan area,

whereas the density gradient represents the slope from the center to the edge.

As explained in Chapter 3, density may have complicated direct effects on economic

segregation (Pendall and Carruthers 2003). Thus both gross population density (‘DEN’) and its

square term (‘SQDEN’) are included in the later regression analyses. This indicator is expected

to have non-linear impact on the dependent variable; however, the specific signs remain

unknown.

Due to lack of national data for local exclusionary zoning, two alternative proxy

variables – total number of local government fragmentations and number of local government

fragmentations per 100,000 households – operationalize the exclusivity of local zoning

regimes, which is the third suburbanization indicator in this study. The “Tiebout Hypothesis”

indicates that the consumer-voters try to move to the place where the local government’s

revenue-expenditure pattern for goods and services fit their preference the best (Tiebout 1956).

This voting-by-moving behavior of residents, and the wide latitude and autonomy granted to

local jurisdictions, motivate small local governments to engage in a beggar-thy-neighbor

competition by adopting exclusionary zoning policies that filter out potential residents with

income below the median for their jurisdiction or who require more costly services (Dreier,

12 Land area is calculated from the specific boundary recorded for each land entity in the U.S.
Census Bureau’s geographic database. It includes intermittent water and glaciers, which appear
on census maps and in the TIGER® file as hydrographic features. The accuracy of the area
 56

Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom 2001). A metropolitan area with a larger number of either total

local governments or local governments per 100,000 households is considered having more

exclusionary zoning restrictions, and thus having higher level economic segregation. Using

Census SF3 data, the total number of local governments13 (‘GOVT’) is summarized for each

MSA/PMSA in both 1990 and 2000; and the number of local governments per 100,000

households, ‘GOVT_SCL’, is simply a rescaled version of the ‘GOVT’. The expected impact

of either of these proxy variables on the dependent variable is positive.

Another indicator of suburbanization is the homogeneity of new development. To

operationalize this indicator, within each MSA/PMSA, suburban census tracts14 are ranked by

the median year structure built information of their housing units; a smaller ranking number

indicates an older tract. Then the last 10 percent of these tracts whose housing units were most

recently built are defined as the “newest developed suburban neighborhoods”. The ratio of

upper value quartile over lower value quartile for specified owner-occupied housing units15 is

computed for each of these newest developed suburban neighborhoods. Finally, mean of these

quartile ratios, weighted by the number of total housing units, is calculated for each

metropolitan area. A lower value on this indicator means a metropolitan area has more

homogenous housing types in its newest developed suburban neighborhoods, though it does not

measurement is limited by the inaccuracy inherent in the mapping of the various boundary
features in the TIGER® file.
13 Number of census places serves as proxies of number local governments.
14 Census tracts sometimes span city boundaries. A census tract with more than 50 percent of
its total population living in a central city is recognized as a “central-city-tract”; otherwise it is
considered as a “suburban tract”.
15 Specified owner-occupied housing units include only owner-occupied, one family houses on
less than 10 acres without a business or medical office on the property.
 57

say whether the housing stock is high value or low value. Therefore the expected impact of this

variable ‘HSVVARRAT’ on economic segregation is negative.

In addition, an argument could be made that this homogeneity of new development

variable is endogenous. However, as discussed in the paragraph above, this variable actually

focuses only on the newest housing. Thus it tests the role of rapidly suburbanizing areas

relative to the other 90 percent existing stock. Moreover, housing value is not exactly identical

to income although they are correlated. Plus, when compare over time, the effect of this

variable depends on homogeneity of both origin and destination neighborhoods. So clearly the

influence of the homogeneity of the newest developed suburban neighborhoods on economic

segregation in metropolitan area is not a definitional relationship.

Besides Census SF3 data, Census 1990 STF1 data is also utilized to provide sufficient

housing value information in 1990. Despite the differences existing between STF1 and STF3

data, combining them in the 1990 calculation of this indicator is considered as a legitimate

approach, since Census Bureau claims that the long form estimates in summary file 3 match the

summary file 1 counts for larger geographic areas and are essentially the same for medium and

large cities. Furthermore, appropriate inflation adjustment is made for the 1990 calculation to

enable comparison over time16.

The fifth suburbanization indicator, the inaccessibility of jobs, is measured by the

length of average daily commutes of employed central city residents who are age sixteen or

16 The 1990 housing value information reported in Census 1990 STF1 data is converted into
2000 dollars by multiplying an inflation multiplier of 1.33. Based on the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) for all urban consumers for all items with a base period of 1982-84, this multiplier is
calculated as 2000 April CPI (171.3) over 1990 April CPI (128.9). Instead of 1999 and 1989
annual CPI used to adjust household income inflation, 2000 and 1990 April CPI are employed
 58

older and work outside home. By examining commutes times only among central city residents,

I eliminate suburban commutes to the core. Generally, the longer commute times of central city

residents indicates a more spread out pattern of suburban development. Hence this variable,

which is named as ‘AVTM_CC’ is expected to be positively related with the dependent

variable. Using Census SF3 data, the average commuting time of central city residents,

measured in minutes, has become slightly longer over the last ten years in most of metropolitan

areas.

The relatively rapid growth at the peripheral areas of a city center serves as the last

indicator of suburbanization in this study. Based on Census SF3 data, variable ‘RAPIDGW’ is

calculated as the difference in population growth rates between central cities and peripheral

suburbs for each MSA/PMSA during the study period17. The larger value this variable obtains,

the more rapid growth experienced at the periphery suburbs relative to the city center in a

metropolitan area. Therefore the expected impact of ‘RAPIDGW’ on economic segregation is

positive. Empirical results found that the suburban areas experienced relatively higher

population growth relative to central city for the majority of US metropolitan areas.

The expected direct impacts of these six suburbanization indicators on economic

segregation are summarized in Table 5-7. Moreover, Chapter 7 discusses the basic descriptive

statistics, regional differences, and other observed patterns of each indicator in detail.

here because the reported housing values in Census were estimated by owners by the time they
turned in the Census forms. Note the difference between these two multipliers is negligible.
17 Because central city boundaries change and the Census Bureau changes the list of cities
considered “central”, I use 2000 central cities as the base and project their boundaries onto the
1990 map using GIS.
 59

5.3.3 Operationalizing metropolitan context

Variables operationalizing metropolitan context are: division, aged population ratio, old

housing stock ratio, large-size household ratio, recent in-migration rate, internal turnover rate,

total population scale, and population growth rate.

Nine dummy variables categorize nine census divisions based on Census geographic

information. Census divisions are groupings of states and the District of Columbia that

subdivide the United States for the presentation of census data. Established by the Census

Bureau in 1910, there are nine census divisions: New England (‘NEWENG’), Middle Atlantic

(‘MIDATL’), East North Central (‘ESTNCT’), West North Central (‘WSTNCT’), South

Atlantic (‘STHATL’), East South Central (‘ESTSCT’), West South Central (‘WSTSCT’),

Mountain (‘MOUNTN’), and Pacific (‘PACIFC’); and these nine divisions can be grouped into

four regions: Northeast, Midwest, South, and West (see Figure 5-1). For every MSA/PMSA,

each of the nine division dummy variables is coded as 1 if this metropolitan area is located in

that division; otherwise it is coded as 0. For those metropolitan areas that comprise multiple

divisions, the division where most of their population lived in is considered as the dominant

one, and only the dummy variable corresponding to that dominant division is coded as 1. Thus

each metropolitan area only belongs to one division. Table 5-2 demonstrates the distribution of

metropolitan areas by census division. These division dummy variables control for the potential

regional differences of economic segregation as a group, although the specific direct impact of

each one of them on the dependent variable remains unclear.

 60

Table 5-2. Metropolitan areas by census division

Census division MSA/PMSA comprised Percent
New England 25 7.55
Middle Atlantic 35 10.57
East North Central 51 15.41
West North Central 26 7.85
South Atlantic 59 17.82
East South Central 26 7.85
West South Central 44 13.29
Mountain 25 7.55
Pacific 40 12.08
Total 331 100

Figure 5-1. Census divisions and regions

(Source: Regional Energy Profile by the Energy Information Administration
2001http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/maps/us_census.html)

Aged population ratio, old housing stock ratio, and large-size household ratio are all

operationalized based upon Census SF3 data. The variable ‘AGEPOPRAT’ measures aged

population ratio as the percentage of the total population over 65 in an MSA/PMSA. This
 61

variable is expected to be negatively associated with the dependent variable, since the higher

proportion of aged population within a metropolitan area, the less mobility its residents have.

The old housing stock ratio, ‘AGEHSRAT’, is calculated as the percentage of housing units

built before 1939 in a metropolitan area. This variable is also expected to be negatively related

to the dependent variable, because a city with higher proportion of older housing stock is

considered to have more mixed housing types available and thus less economic segregation

observed. The large-size household ratio, ‘HHSSIZ’, is computed as the number of households

that include more than 4 members over the total number of households in a metropolitan area.

Since large households are considered as less mobile than small ones, a metropolitan area with

higher proportion of large households is expected to have lower level of economic segregation.

Again, the expected impact of this variable on the dependent variable is negative.

Two variables focus on the housing market dynamics: recent in-migration rate

(‘INMGRRAT’) and internal turnover rate (‘INTRNRAT’). Recent in-migration rate is

calculated as the newly in-migrant population over the total population in a metropolitan area.

The newly in-migrant population is defined as the metropolitan residents who are age five or

older and lived outside the metropolitan area five years before the base year of the decade. This

variable is expected to be negatively associated with the dependent variable, since more recent

in-migration introduces more disturbances in local housing market and reduces economic

segregation in short term. Internal turnover rate, on the other hand, is expected to be positively

related to the dependent variable, because higher proportion of internal movers in local housing

market advances the ecological process and increases economic segregation. This variable is

computed as the number of metropolitan area residents (except for the in-migrants) who are age

five or older and moved within the metropolitan area in the previous five years over the number
 62

of total metropolitan population who are not in-migrants. Both variables are measured based

upon Census 2000 SF3 and Census 1990 STF3 data18.

Using the 100 percent count of population data in Census SF3 files, variable

‘POPSCAL_N’ summarizes the log of total population within metropolitan area in 1990 and

2000. The expected sign of the coefficient for this variable is positive, since larger metropolitan

areas may encompass greater internal differentiation among neighborhoods. Variable

‘POPGWRAT’, standing for population growth rate, is simply calculated as the difference

between 1990 and 2000 total population over the 1990 total population in a metropolitan area,

based upon the Census 100 percent count of population information. The national mean of

population growth rate is about 13.44 percent over the last decade. As discussed in Chapter 4,

this variable is considered having complicated direct effects on economic segregation; therefore

the expected sign of its coefficient remains unclear.

The following Table 5-3 demonstrates the national means of aged population ratio, old

housing stock ratio, large-size household ratio, recent in-migration rate, internal turnover rate,

and total population scale in MSA/PMSAs in 1990 and 2000. The expected direct impacts of

these metropolitan context variables on economic segregation are summarized in Table 5-7.

18 In this study, 2000 MSAs and PMSAs geographic boundaries are utilized consistently to
calculate both 1990 and 2000 variables. However, the actual metropolitan areas’ boundaries
have changed during the ten years. Thus the consistent boundary method may introduce
potential possibility of measurement errors into the calculations of recent in-migration rate and
internal turnover rate using 1990 data. Although it is hard to exactly determine the scale of
these possible measurement errors, it is reasonable to assume that the probability of these
potential measurement errors is proportional to the percentage of total population living within
the geographic areas that the metropolitan boundary changes occurred. To control for these
potential measurement errors, an adjustment factor that measures the proportion of total 1990
metropolitan population that lived in the metropolitan boundary changed areas is introduced
into the regression analyses. This adjust factor is eventually left out from the estimation models
 63

Table 5-3. National means of metropolitan

context control variables
Metropolitan context Mean*
variables 1990 2000
Aged population ratio 12.04 11.95
Old housing stock ratio 17.72 14.36
Large-size household ratio 11.21 11.35
Recent in-migration rate 18.61 17.22
Internal turnover rate 36.71 36.29
Log(total population) 14.02 14.14
*The national means are weighted by the number
of total households in MSA/PMSAs, and expressed
in percentage forms.

5.3.4 Operationalizing structural economic characteristics

Variables operationalizing local structural economic characteristics are: mean

household income, manufacturing employment ratio, management and professional related

occupation ratio, and percentage change of mean household income.

Mean household income is simply calculated as the aggregate household income over

the total household number for each MSA/PMSA based upon Census SF3 data. To allow

comparison over time, appropriate inflation adjustment is made for the 1990 mean household

income calculation19. As explained in Chapter 4, mean household income is considered having

nonlinear effect on economic segregation (Jargowsky 1996). Thus both overall mean household

income (‘MHHSINC’) and its square term (‘SQMHI’) are included in the later regression

presented in later chapters, because empirical results show that it has no significant effect at all,
indicating the potential measurement errors are not significant either.
19 The 1989 household income information reported in Census 1990 STF3 data is converted
into 1999 dollars by multiplying an inflation multiplier of 1.34. Based on the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) for all urban consumers for all items with a base period of 1982-84, this multiplier
is calculated as 1999 annual CPI (166.6) over 1989 annual CPI (124.0).
 64

analyses. This variable is expected to have non-linear impact on the dependent variable,

although the specific signs remain unknown.

Two variables focus on the deindustrialization process: manufacturing employment

ratio and management and professional related occupation ratio. Variable ‘MANUFCTRAT’

represents manufacturing employment ratio and is computed as the percentage of the total

employed civilian metropolitan population (16 years and over) who work in manufacturing

industry. Since a smaller proportion of manufacturing workers should increase economic

segregation as new firms locate in a more dispersed pattern, this variable is expected to be

negatively associated with the dependent variable. Management and professional related

occupation ratio (‘MNGPRFRAT’), on the other hand, is expected positively related to the

dependent variable, since higher proportion of employees who have management and

professional occupation may emphasize class differences within racial/ethnic groups and

increase economic segregation. This variable is calculated as the proportion of the total

employed civilian metropolitan population (16 years and over) who are engaged in

management, professional, and related occupations. Both variables are measured based upon

Census 2000 SF3 and Census 1990 STF3 data: manufacturing employment ratio is derived

from the industry information, and management and professional related occupation ratio is

estimated by utilizing the occupation table20.

20 The definitions of industry and occupation categories are significantly different in 1990 and
2000 Census data. These differences were caused by the revision to the Standard Occupational
Classification (SOC) and to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). To
minimize the potential measurement errors and to allow comparison over time, the 1990
calculation is adjusted by the using the preliminary crosswalk factors reported by the Census
Bureau. Specifically, to calculate the 1990 manufacturing employment ratio, the corresponding
1990 industry categories are converted to 2000 “manufacturing” category by using the
preliminary industry tabulation crosswalk factors; and to compute the 1990 management and
 65

Based on the Census SF3 data, percentage change of mean household income,

‘PCCHGMINC_T’, is simply computed as the difference between 1990 and 2000 mean

household income over the 1990 mean household income in every metropolitan area. As

discussed in Chapter 4, this variable is considered having complicated direct effects on

economic segregation; therefore the expected sign of its coefficient remains unclear.

The following Table 5-4 demonstrates the national means of manufacturing

employment ratio and management and professional related occupation ratio in MSA/PMSAs

in 1990 and 2000. Table 5-5 shows the national means of metropolitan areas’ mean household

income in 1990 and 2000 and of its percentage change over the last decade. The expected direct

impacts of all the variables characterizing structural local economy on economic segregation

are summarized in Table 5-7.

Table 5-4. National means of manufacturing employment ratio and

management and professional related occupation ratio
Mean*
Structural economic characteristics 1990 2000
Manufacturing employment ratio 16.40 13.18
Management and professional related occupation ratio 30.94 34.86
* The national means are weighted by the number of total households in
MSA/PMSAs, and expressed in percentage forms.

Table 5-5. National means of mean household income and percentage change
of mean household income
Structural economic Mean
characteristics 1990 2000 Percentage change
Mean household income 54191.51* 59360.98* 9.93**
*The national means of mean household income are weighted by the number of total
households in MSA/PMSAs, and measured in 2000 dollars.
**The national mean of the percentage changes of mean household income is weighted
by the average of 1990 and 2000 total households number in MSA/PMSAs, and
expressed in percentage form.

professional related occupation ratio, the corresponding 1990 occupation categories are
converted to 2000 “management, professional, and related occupations” category by using the
preliminary occupation tabulation crosswalk factors.
 66

5.3.5 Operationalizing social distance and inequality

Variables operationalizing social distance and inequality are poverty rate within each

racial/ethnic group and overall gini coefficient.

Based upon Census SF3 data, for each racial/ethnic group, group’s poverty rate

(‘POVRAT’) is calculated as the population with income below the applicable federal poverty

threshold over the total population for whom poverty status is determined.

The gini coefficient is an index between zero and one that measures the degree of

inequality in the income distribution of a given society. It is derived based on the Lorenz curve,

a cumulative frequency curve that compares the distribution of hosehold income with the

uniform distribution that represents equality. As shown in Figure 5-2, the equality distribution

is represented by the diagonal line; and the greater the deviation of the Lorenz curve from this

line, the greater the inequality. The gini coefficient is measured as the area A over the summary

of areas A and B. It registers zero for a society in which each household receives exactly the

same income, and equals to one if one household gets all the income and the rest get nothing. In

this study, variable ‘GINI_I’ is calculated based upon the individual household income

information from the 5 percent PUMS data. To allow comparison over time, appropriate

inflation adjustment is made for the 1990 gini coefficient calculation21.

21 The 1989 household income information reported in PUMS data is converted into 1999
dollars by multiplying an inflation multiplier of 1.34. Based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
for all urban consumers for all items with a base period of 1982-84, this multiplier is calculated
as 1999 annual CPI (166.6) over 1989 annual CPI (124.0).
 67

Figure 5-2. Lorenz Curve

(Source: Schenk, Robert 2002.
Measuring Income Distribution.)

As measures of overall inequality and within group inequality, both the groups’ poverty

rate and the overall gini coefficient are expected to be positively associated with the dependent

variable (see Table 5-7). The following Table 5-6 demonstrates the national means of the

poverty rates for each racial/ethnic group and of the overall gini coefficients in 1990 and 2000.

Table 5-6. National means of poverty rates for each racial group
and overall gini coefficient
Mean
Social distance and inequality variables 1990 2000
Whites and others 8.00 7.75
Group’s poverty rate Blacks 27.78 23.94
Hispanics 22.47 21.35
Overall gini coefficient 0.42 0.45
*All the national means are weighted by total household number
in MSA/PMSAs, and the values of groups’ poverty rate are
expressed in percentage form.
 68

Table 5-7. Hypothetical direct effects of independent variables on economic

segregation
Expected direct impact
Variable name Description on economic segregation
Suburbanization indicators
DENGRAD Urban density gradient –
DEN Population density and Non-linear
SQDEN its square term
GOVT Alternative proxies for +
GOVT_SCL exclusionary zoning
HSVVARRAT Homogeneity of new –
development
AVTM_CC Inaccessibility to jobs +
RAPIDGW Relatively rapid growth Unknown
Metropolitan context
NEWENG New England division
MIDATL Middle Atlantic division
ESTNCT East North Central div.
WSTNCT West North Central div.
STHATL South Atlantic division Unknown
ESTSCT East South Central div.
WSTSCT West South Central div.
MOUNTN Mountain division
PACIFC Pacific division
AGEPOPRAT Aged population ratio –
AGEHSRAT Old housing stock ratio –
HHSSIZ Larger household ratio –
INMGRRAT Recent in-migration rate –
INTRNRAT Internal turnover rate +
POPSCAL_N Log of total population +
POPGWRAT Population growth rate Unknown
Structural economic characteristics
MHHSINC Mean household income Non-linear
SQMHI and its square term
MANUFCTRAT Manufacturing –
employment ratio
MNGPRFRAT Management and +
professional related
occupation ratio
PCCHGMINC_T Percentage change of Unknown
mean household income
Social distance and inequality
POVRAT Group’s poverty rate +
GINI_I Gini coefficients +
 CHAPTER 6

ECONOMIC SEGREGATION IN THE 1990s

6.1 Historical pattern of increasing economic segregation 1970-1990

Economic segregation increased in the United States from 1970 to 1990. Not only did

inequality among regions widen, but also economic segregation between cities and suburbs,

and income segregation among suburbs grew during this period (Dreier, Mollenkopf, and

Swanstrom 2001; Lucy and Phillips 2000). Meanwhile, the concentration of urban poverty

increased noticeably. Using a 40 percent poverty threshold, Jargowsky (1997) demonstrated

that poverty areas grew in terms of the number of tracts, in total population, as a percentage of

the overall population, in the percentage of poor persons living in them, and in geographical

size. Furthermore, this problem was mostly clustered in older industrial cities of the Northeast

and Midwest, and was mainly a central-city problem.

The increasing trend of economic segregation from 1970 to 1990 was also found at the

neighborhood level. Using census tract data and measuring economic segregation by the

indices of dissimilarity and isolation, Abramson, Tobin, and VanderGoot (1995) found the

dissimilarity of the poor increased by 11 percent, and the isolation of the poor rose by 9 percent

between 1970 and 1990. They further claimed that income segregation increased more in the

Northeast and Midwest than in the South and West areas. Another study by Jargowsky (1996)

used the neighborhood sorting index (NSI) to measure the economic segregation, and also

found a pronounced and nearly ubiquitous trend toward increased economic segregation within

69
 70

each racial or ethnical group from 1970 to 1990. As illustrated in the following Table 6-1, the

mean NSI values for all Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics kept raising during the twenty years.

The increases are largest for Blacks: the mean NSI rose more than 40 percent between 1970

and 1990 – from 0.341 to 0.480. Most of this increase happened in the 1980s. Economic

segregation among Whites also increased about 10 percent in both the 1970s and 1980s. For

Hispanics, the mean NSI increased from 0.384 to 0.419 (roughly 9 percent increasing) in the

1970s, and further rose to 0.487 (about 16 percent increasing) during the 1980s.

Table 6-1. Neighborhood Sorting Index (NSI) by racial and ethnic group:
U.S. metropolitan areas (MSA/PMSAs), 1970 to 1990
White Black Hispanic
Mean MSA/PMSAs Mean MSA/PMSAs Mean MSA/PMSAs
Year NSI Number NSI Number NSI Number
1970 0.310 228 0.341 76 0.384 30
1980 0.343 318 0.395 111 0.419 49
1990 0.374 336 0.480 131 0.487 68
Note: includes metropolitan areas with 10,000 or more households for each racial
or ethnic group indicated; means are weighted by number of households for each
racial or ethnic group.
Source: Jargowsky, Paul A. 1996. “Take the Money and Run: Economic Segregation
in U.S. Metropolitan Areas” American Sociological Review Vol. 61
(December. 984-998).

6.2 Reverse trend of decreasing economic segregation 1990-2000

Using 1990 and 2000 Census and PUMS data, this study examines economic

segregation, which is measured by the Neighborhood Sorting Index (NSI), over the last decade

in all US metropolitan areas. Empirical results indicate that economic segregation decreased

significantly from 1990 to 2000, reversing the earlier trend. Section 6.2.1 below discusses the

empirical findings about this reversing trend, followed by the Section 6.2.2 that tries to explore

the potential contributors to this decline.

 71

6.2.1 Empirical findings of declining economic segregation over the last decade

The empirical results indicate a pronounced trend toward decreasing economic

segregation. The following Table 6-2 shows the weighted mean NSI for non-Hispanic Whites

and other racial/ethnic groups, Blacks, and Hispanics. Figures in the upper panel are for all

metropolitan areas in the US that had at least 10,000 households for that group in that year; the

lower panel demonstrates the weighted mean for a constant set of metropolitan areas. For

instance, the 1990 NSI for Blacks is 0.479, indicating the standard deviation of the distribution

of neighborhood mean incomes is about half of the standard deviation of overall income

distribution. Thus, between-neighborhood variance accounts for about 23 percent (0.479

squared) of the total variance in household income.

Note that the 1990 weighted mean NSI values presented in Table 6-2 are not necessarily

comparable to those in Table 6-1 in Section 6.1 due to different calculation methods engaged.

The metropolitan areas investigated in these two tables are not exactly the same. As discussed

in previous Chapter 5, 2000 MSAs and PMSAs geographic boundaries are applied consistently

to calculate both 1990 and 2000 NSI in this study. This constant boundary method recognizes

331 MSAs and PMSAs altogether. Among these metropolitan areas, six of them are excluded

from this study since five metropolitan areas contain no “central city”22 and one has no

“suburbs”23. Based upon the 325 MSA/PMSAs actually included in this study, Table 6-2

further excludes those containing less than 10,000 households for each racial/ethnic group; thus

the MSA/PMSAs number reported in Table 6-2 and Table 6-1 are different. More important,

22 The five metropolitan areas having no “central city” are Bergen, NJ; Brazoria, TX;
Middlesex, NJ; Monmouth, NJ; and Nassau, NY.
23 The metropolitan area having no real “suburbs” is Anchorage, AK, where all of its residents
live in the central city.
 72

since the necessary information about individual household income are not published by the

Bureau of the Census, Jargowsky (1996) used the Pareto extrapolation method to estimate the

total variance of household income – which is the denominator of NSI24, whereas this study

directly extracts individual household income information from the 5 percent PUMS data.

Table 6-2. Neighborhood Sorting Index (NSI) by racial and ethnic group:
U.S. metropolitan areas (MSA/PMSAs), 1990 to 2000
White and others Black Hispanic
Sample Mean MSA/PMSAs Mean MSA/PMSAs Mean MSA/PMSAs
and Year NSI Number NSI Number NSI Number
All
MSA/PMSAs
1990 0.454 324 0.479 130 0.501 69
2000 0.377 324 0.408 143 0.400 99
Constant
Set of
MSA/PMSAs
1990 0.454 324 0.479 130 0.501 69
2000 0.377 324 0.408 130 0.398 69
*Note: includes metropolitan areas with 10,000 or more households for each racial or
ethnic group indicated; means are weighted by number of households for each racial or
ethnic group.

As shown in the upper panel of Table 6-2, the NSI values declined for all racial/ethnic

groups from 1990 to 2000. For non-Hispanic Whites and others, the NSI decreased by about 17

percent over the last decade — from 0.454 to 0.377. For Blacks, the NSI decreased from 0.479

to 0.408 (15 percent) from 1990 to 2000. Hispanics experienced an even larger decline: the NSI

for Hispanics decreased by about 20 percent over the ten years — from 0.501 to 0.400. These

findings are not driven by the inclusion of more metropolitan areas in 2000; as shown in the

lower panel of Table 6-2, indices for a constant set of metropolitan areas illustrate a virtually

identical pattern of results.

24 See Jargowsky (1996), Appendix A for details of this method.

 73

NSI by Racial/Ethnic Groups 1970-2000

0.60

0.55

0.50

0.45

0.40
Hispanic
0.35
Mean NSI

Black
0.30 White*

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year

Figure 6-1. Neighborhood Sorting Index (NSI) by racial/ethnic groups, 1970-2000

Note: the 1970 and 1980 data are from Jargowsky’s (1996) paper “Take the Money
and Run: Economic Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas” American Sociological
Review Vol. 61 (December. 984-998). The 1990 and 2000 data are based upon the
indices in the upper panel of Table 6-2 in this study. Due to methodological
differences, these figures are not strictly comparable.
*White stands for non-Hispanic White and other racial/ethnic groups. For details of
racial and ethnic group classification in this study, see relevant discussions in
Section 5.3.1, Chapter 5.

The above Figure 6-1 helps to illustrate the patterns of changes in economic segregation

from 1970 to 2000 more clearly. The weighted mean NSI for Whites and others, Blacks, and

Hispanics in 1970 and 1980 are based upon Jargowsky’s study (1996); the 1990 and 2000

numbers are from the empirical results of this study. The upward sloping lines connecting the

1970, 1980, and 1990 mean NSI values demonstrate the continuously increasing economic

segregation for all the three racial groups in those two decades. The turning points are 1990.

From this year till 2000, the line for every racial/ethnic group becomes negative sloping, clearly
 74

reflecting the new trend of decreasing economic segregation during the last ten years. The

scopes of these declines are quite considerable for all these three racial/ethnic groups;

nevertheless, the mean NSI values in 2000 after the ten-year diminishing are still higher than

their counterparts in 1980 for Whites and others and Blacks and certainly higher than the

figures in 1970 for all the three groups. For example, the mean NSI for Whites and others

dropped to 0.377 in 2000, which is still about 10 percent higher than the value in 1980 and

almost 22 percent higher than the figure in 1970.

Furthermore, the trend toward lower economic segregation was remarkably widespread.

As shown in Table 6-3, 309 out of 324 metropolitan areas (95 percent) had a decrease in NSI

for Whites and others in the 1990s. For Blacks, among 130 metropolitan areas, there were 108

cities (about 83 percent) experienced decreasing in NSI. For Hispanics, 62 out of 69

metropolitan areas (90 percent) had higher NSI values in 1990 compared to 2000.

Table 6-3. U.S. metropolitan areas (MSA/PMSAs) experiencing NSI

decline by racial and ethnic group: 1990 to 2000
MSA/PMSAs Total
experiencing metropolitan Percent
NSI decline Areas change
White and others 309 324 95.37
Black 108 130 83.08
Hispanic 62 69 89.86
*Note: includes metropolitan areas with 10,000 or more households
in 1990 for each racial or ethnic group indicated.

Additionally, the NSI values for the ten largest metropolitan areas in US, as presented in

Table 6-4, demonstrate the same pattern of decreasing economic segregation. Over the last

decade, the NSI decreased for all the non-Hispanic Whites and other racial/ethnic groups,

Blacks, and Hispanics in all these ten largest metropolitan areas. More specifically, Houston

had the largest decline of economic segregation for Whites and others. The NSI for Whites and
 75

others in this metropolitan area changed from 0.596 in 1990 to 0.460 in 2000, dropping about

23 percent. As to Blacks, Detroit experienced the most significant decreasing in the NSI value

– from 0.552 to 0.421 or about 24 percent. The most dramatic income segregation diminishing

for Hispanics happened in Atlanta. Over the last ten years, the NSI for Hispanics dropped in

half almost – from 0.825 to 0.413 or 50 percent.

Table 6-4. Neighborhood Sorting Index: the 10 largest metropolitan areas,

1990-2000
White and others Black Hispanic
Metropolitan areas 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000
Los Angeles 0.624 0.497 0.547 0.463 0.482 0.384
New York 0.616 0.496 0.464 0.389 0.526 0.427
Chicago 0.551 0.437 0.491 0.430 0.517 0.391
Philadelphia 0.513 0.425 0.465 0.418 0.964 0.584
Washington D.C. 0.538 0.456 0.506 0.439 0.612 0.494
Detroit 0.566 0.446 0.552 0.421 0.986 0.655
Houston 0.596 0.460 0.487 0.421 0.498 0.359
Atlanta 0.497 0.406 0.468 0.408 0.825 0.413
Dallas 0.569 0.473 0.488 0.428 0.549 0.425
Boston 0.461 0.403 0.534 0.503 0.615 0.478
Note: sorted by 2000 total population.

In brief, as measured by the Neighborhood Sorting Index, a nearly ubiquitous trend

toward decreasing economic segregation is found in the 1990s for all racial and ethnic groups

in U.S. This finding is largely consistent with the dramatic decline of concentrated poverty

during the same period documented by numerous studies. For instance, Kingsley and Pettit

(2003) found that the number of poor residents living in high-poverty neighborhoods in US

metropolitan areas declined slightly from about 7.1 millions in 1990 to nearly 6.7 millions in

2000. As a result, the share of metropolitan poor living in high-poverty neighborhoods declined

during the ten years – from about 31 percent to 26 percent. Jargowsky (2003) also reported that

the number of people living in high-poverty neighborhoods (where the poverty rate is 40
 76

percent or higher) declined by a dramatic 24 percent, or 2.5 million people, in the 1990s.

Furthermore, he found the concentrated poverty, which is the share of the poor living in high-

poverty neighborhoods, declined among all racial and ethnic groups, especially for African

Americans.

6.2.2 Potential contributors to the economic segregation diminishing

First of all, the strong economic boom in the 1990s may be the primary contributor to

the declining economic segregation and concentrated poverty that discussed earlier. During the

1990s boom, which is the longest economic expansion on record, the US unemployment rate

fell from 6.8 percent in March 1991 to 4.3 percent in March 2001. Over those ten years, the

economy created almost 24 million jobs – an average of 200,000 jobs per month – and pushed

the jobless rate to 4.5 percent or below for about 34 months (Rodgers 2005). Moreover, the

robust economy not only led to substantial real-wage and income growth for low-income

families and even narrowed wage dispersion in the bottom half of the distribution (Katz 2002),

but also substantially improved the absolute and relative economic position of African

Americans (Rodgers 2005). For example, by the end of this boom, the Black unemployment

rate dropped below 10 percent for a sustained period; and the earnings of African Americans,

especially of young African Americans, increased considerably (Rodgers 2005). Additionally,

the economic prosperity induced pervasive central city revitalization and gentrification progress

in the metropolitan areas in this country. By reinvesting in city centers and deteriorating

neighborhoods, these redevelopment programs changed the essential characters and flavors of

inner-city neighborhoods by encouraging higher income households to displace lower income

residents.
 77

Besides the robust economy, the significant public policy changes in US over the last

decade may also contribute toward the diminishing economic segregation and concentration of

poverty. For instance, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which is the largest federal aid

program targeted to low-income working individuals and families, was sharply expanded by

the Clinton Administration during the 1990s (Berube 2005). In 1998, the EITC lifted about 4.3

million people out of poverty, half of whom were children25. Meyer and Rosenbaum (1999)

also found that the expansion of EITC contribute to about 37 percent of the increase in the

employment rate of single mothers from 1992 to 1996. Another significant change in the

nation’s welfare system was the replacement of the old Aid to Families with Dependent

Children (AFDC) with the new program called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families

(TANF) in mid-1990s. The TANF required the recipients to undertake constructive activities

leading to self-sufficiency as a condition of receiving assistance, and thus granted more

motivations of job-seeking and moving behaviors on the recipients. Some studies indicated that

the welfare reform contributed to the sustained and unprecedented drop in the poverty rates for

single mothers and Black children (Rector 2002). For example, Ellwood (1999) concluded that

about 50 percent of the increase in the employment rate of single mothers during the 1990s is

linked to welfare reform.

Furthermore, the decentralized housing policy changes during 1990s may serve as

positive factors contributing to lower level of income segregation and concentrated poverty as

well. For instance, the Clinton Administration substantially expanded the Housing Choice

Voucher Program (formerly known as Section 8) and provided very low-income families with

25 This statement with specific numbers is from the JCPR Legislative Research Briefing by the
Joint Center for Poverty Research of the Northwestern University and the University of
 78

more opportunities to rent safe, privately-owned apartments or houses and move into better

communities with higher income and lower poverty and crime (Weiss 2002). In addition,

during the last decade, more local governments and jurisdictions adopted the inclusionary

zoning policy, which aims to promote mixed-income, diverse, and integrated communities,

provide housing for a diverse labor force, and connect residents in high poverty neighborhoods

to opportunities. By requiring developers to make a percentage of housing units in new

residential developments available to low- and moderate-income households, this policy links

the production of affordable housing with private market development and expands the supply

for affordable housing by dispersing affordable units throughout a city or county (Fox and Rose

2003).

Overall, it is true that economic segregation did decrease significantly over the last

decade, because of certain reasons such as the health of the US economy and few essential

public policy changes discussed above. Nevertheless, suburban development might still have

been contributing to increasing income segregation. The Figure 6-1 in Section 6.2.1 indicates

clearly that although the mean NSI values in 2000 are much lower than the values in 1990, they

are still higher than their counterparts in 1980 and 1970. From a long-term perspective, the

business cycles kept fluctuating while suburbanization progressed steadily during the last thirty

more years. It is reasonable to consider the hypothesis that if there was no continuing

suburbanization, the economic segregation might have decreased even further. Therefore, the

later Chapter 8 further explores the impacts of suburbanization indicators on economic

segregation by utilizing cross-sectional and first-difference fixed-effects estimation procedures.

Chicago on Feb 2, 2001. (http://www.jcpr.org/conferences/EITC_state_feb2001.doc)

 79

6.3 Descriptive statistics and histogram of NSI and the changes in NSI in the 1990s

Chapter 8 presents both cross-sectional and first-difference fixed-effects regression

analyses to examine the impacts of suburbanization indicators on economic segregation,

controlling for other variables measuring urban scenarios of metropolitan context, structural

economic characteristics, and social distance and inequality. The Neighborhood Sorting Index

(NSI) is the measurement of economic segregation in this study and computed based upon

Census and PUMS data. For the cross-sectional estimations, the NSI are first calculated in both

1990 and 2000 for non-Hispanic Whites and other racial/ethnic groups, Blacks, and Hispanics

respectively; then the six resulting sets of NSI are pooled together as the dependent variable. As

to the first-difference fixed effects analyses, the changes in NSI are computed for all the three

racial/ethnic groups in the 1990s; then the three resulting sets of changes in NSI are pooled and

regressed against all the independent variables. The following Table 6-5 illustrates the basic

descriptive statistics of the pooled NSI and the pooled changes in NSI.

Table 6-5. Descriptive statistics of pooled NSI and pooled changes in NSI
Mean Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum
Pooled NSI* 0.419 0.094 0.129 0.986
Pooled changes in NSI** -0.077 0.047 -0.470 0.233
*Mean of pooled NSI is weighted by the number of total households in
MSA/PMSAs in 1990 or 2000.
**Mean of pooled changes in NSI is weighted by average number of total
households in MSA/PMSAs in1990 and 2000.

The national mean value of pooled NSI is about 0.419. After pooled the NSI for every

racial/ethnic group in both 1990 and 2000 together, the minimum numeric value of 0.129 is

found in Rocky Mount, North Carolina in 2000 for Blacks, whereas the maximum numeric

value of 0.986 is found in Detroit in 1990 for Hispanics. Regarding the pooled changes in NSI,

the national mean value is about -0.077, hinting the trend of decreasing economic segregation
 80

discussed earlier. The minimum numeric value of pooled changes of NSI is -0.470, found in

Pittsburgh for Blacks. Despite the widespread declines of income segregation over the last

decade, some metropolitan areas still experienced increasing economic segregation for some

groups. For example, the maximum numeric value of pooled changes of NSI is 0.233, which is

found in Galveston, Texas among its Black residents.

Furthermore, the following Figure 6-2 and Figure 6-3 demonstrate the histograms of the

pooled NSI and pooled changes in NSI respectively. For pooled NSI, as shown in Figure 6-2,

most of the observations fall within the range of positive and negative two standard deviations

around the mean. This distribution has one peak and looks largely symmetrical with few

positive outliers. Figure 6-3 illustrates that the absolute majority of the pooled changes in NSI

fall within the range of positive and negative three standard deviations around the mean. This

distribution also has only one peak and seems mainly symmetrical with few negative outliers.

Overall, both the distributions of pooled NSI and pooled changes in NSI are not very skewed

and can be considered approximately normal.

 81

120
90
Frequency
60
30
0

-2 s.d. -1 s.d. mean +1 s.d. +2 s.d. +3 s.d.

NSI

Figure 6-2. Histogram of pooled NSI

120
90
Frequency
60
30
0

-3 s.d. -2 s.d. -1 s.d. mean +1 s.d. +2 s.d. +3 s.d.

Change of NSI

Figure 6-3. Histogram of pooled changes in NSI

 CHAPTER 7

SUBURBANIZATION INDICATORS IN THE 1990s

7.1 Urban density gradient

The first suburbanization indicator is the urban density gradient, which describes how

population per square mile of an area drops off with distance from the center of the city (Berry

et al, 1974). The basic descriptive statistics of this indicator are shown in Table 7-1. Most

importantly, the national mean of urban density gradients of all MSA/PMSAs falls from 0.141

in 1990 to 0.132 in 2000; a drop about 6.38 percent. This decline is also quite widespread.

Among the 325 metropolitan areas26, 250 of them (about 76.85 percent) experienced declines in

urban density gradient.

The observed decline in urban density gradient over the last decade is consistent with

the historical trend documented by numerous studies. Berry and Horton (1970) recognized the

phenomenon that density gradient falls over time as the second axiom in the intra-urban

structure and growth, and demonstrated the diminishing density gradients in London from 1801

to 1941 and in Chicago from 1860 to 1950. Mills (1972) reported the average population

density gradients of Baltimore, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Rochester dropped from 1.22 in

1880 all the way down to 0.31 in 1963. Berry et al (1974) showed the density gradients of the

26 There are totally 331 MSA/PMSAs in 2000 Census data; however, 5 of them (Bergen, NJ;
Brazoria, TX; Middlesex, NJ; Monmouth, NJ; and Nassau, NY) contain no “central city”.
Besides, metropolitan area Anchorage, AK has no real “suburbs” since all its residents live in
its central city. Thus the total number of MSA/PMSAs included in this study is 325.
82
 83

eight US urban regions27 they investigated all declining from 1950 to 1970. Furthermore, some

studies with larger scope replicated the same conclusion. For example, Edmonston (1975)

found that the mean population density gradient was 0.65 for 170 US urbanized areas in 1950,

0.47 for 193 urbanized areas in 1960, and eventually 0.38 for 236 urbanized areas in 1970. By

employing the two-point estimation method to examine the Canadian Census Metropolitan

Areas (CMA), scholars also observed significant diminishing of average density gradients from

a value about 1.03 in 1941 to 0.42 in 1976 (Edmonston, Goldberg, and Mercer 1985). All this

literatures, together with the current study, vividly depicts a picture of continuing

deconcentration during the history of urbanization and suburbanization, especially in US.

Although specific numbers reported in different research vary because of geographic

differences in the areas studied and alternative computational methodologies, the trend of

flattening urban density gradient is unanimous. As Berry and Gillard (1977: 1) indicated,

“counter-urbanization has replaced urbanization as the dominant force shaping the nation’s

settlement patterns.”

Table 7-1. Descriptive statistics of urban density gradient: 1990 to 2000

Urban density gradient Mean Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum
1990 0.141 0.073 0.002 0.613
2000 0.132 0.070 -0.040 0.657
*Note: mean of urban density gradient is weighted by the number of total
households in MSA/PMSAs.

As indicated in classic literature, the urban density gradients for all US MSA/PMSAs

are found positive, with only one exception of Jersey City, New Jersey in 2000. In 1990, the

density gradient of Jersey City is around 0.003, which is already a very small value that

27 These eight urban regions are: Akron, Birmingham, Chicago, Cincinnati, Denver, Detroit,
Seattle, and Washington.
 84

demonstrating very similar population densities in its central cities and surrounding areas. In

2000, this value further drops to -0.040, which indicates the population density slightly

increasing with distance from central cities28. One possible reason behind this special case may

be the extreme high density in this metropolitan area. With the highest population density in

this country, the very limited land area forces the relatively large population spreading out all

over the entire place. Another probable cause may be the deteriorating central city

neighborhoods that often accused for gangs behaviors, drug sales, and other repellent features

induce residents moving away from the metropolitan cores. Since the magnitudes of density

gradients for Jersey City in both 1990 and 2000 are essentially moderate and their change over

time is not very dramatic either compared with the national mean, this outlier is assumed not a

threat to the later regression estimations29.

Additionally, the density gradients in US metropolitan areas demonstrate some

interesting regional differences. As shown in Table 7-2, in both 1990 and 2000, West North

Central division and New England division bear the largest urban density gradients among the

nine census divisions. On the contrary, Pacific division has the least average density gradients,

indicating metropolitan areas within this region are generally more suburbanized. For instance,

Los Angeles is the largest metropolitan area in this division and has a density gradient as low as

28 As an approximate verification, I examine the central city and suburbs population density
for Jersey City in 2000. The whole metropolitan area has 2 central cities: Bayonne city and
Jersey City city. The population density for Bayonne city in 2000 is about 10992 persons per
square mile; while its surrounding suburban neighborhoods have a higher mean population
density as 19711 people per square mile. Also, the population density for Jersey City city is
16094 people per square mile in 2000; while its surrounding suburbs have a much higher mean
population density as 33592 persons per square mile. Hence both central cities in Jersey City
metropolitan areas are less dense compared to their surrounding suburbs in 2000.
29 The influence test for Jersey City appears insignificant, and the regression results reveal no
essential change by excluding this outlier.
 85

0.08 in 2000. Many other large metropolitan areas, such as San Francisco, Riverside, and

Orange County in California and Seattle in Washington, all bear density gradients no more than

0.10 in 2000.

Table 7-2. Urban density gradient by census divisions

Mean*
Census divisions 1990 2000 Percent change
New England 0.172 0.167 -2.91
Middle Atlantic 0.122 0.119 -2.46
East North Central 0.145 0.140 -3.45
West North Central 0.175 0.168 -4.00
South Atlantic 0.138 0.118 -14.49
East South Central 0.169 0.153 -9.47
West South Central 0.159 0.146 -8.18
Mountain 0.153 0.139 -9.15
Pacific 0.114 0.109 -4.39
*The means are weighted by the number of total
households in MSA/PMSAs.

In terms of change over time, the average urban density gradient of each division

diminishes from 1990 to 2000, with South Atlantic division experiencing the biggest decline of

14.49 percent. A typical case within this division is Atlanta, where the density gradient dropped

from 0.092 in 1990 to 0.079 in 2000, approximately 13.51 percent. With neither natural

geographical boundaries hemming in outward expansion nor state or local policy restrictions,

Atlanta gained its fame as “the city without limits” because of the phenomenal development

and population growth mainly in its suburbs and peripheral areas (Jaret 2002).

Furthermore, the urban density gradients in US closely relate to size of metropolitan

areas. Table 7-3 illustrates clearly that the larger metropolitan areas have smaller average

density gradients value in both 1990 and 2000. This finding is consistent with results from

many earlier studies. For example, by investigating the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas

(SMSAs) in US from 1950 to 1975, researchers found the mean density gradients inversely
 86

connecting with the population size of the central city (Edmonston, Goldberg, and Mercer

1985). Table 7-3 also indicates the unanimous decline of mean density gradients in all different

sized US metropolitan areas over the last decade. Compared to large and extremely small cities,

the middle size metropolitan areas that contain households between 250,000 and 1,000,000

experienced the most dramatic flattening of density gradients.

Table 7-3. Urban density gradient by size of metropolitan areas

Number of households in an Mean
MSA/PMSA in 2000 1990 2000 Percent change
More than 1,000,000 0.103 0.099 -3.88
Between 500,000 and 1,000,000 0.122 0.110 -9.84
Between 250,000 and 500,000 0.141 0.127 -9.93
Between 125,000 and 250,000 0.157 0.152 -3.18
Between 62,500 and 125,000 0.219 0.201 -8.22
Less than 62,500 0.273 0.259 -5.13
*The means are weighted by the number of total households in
MSA/PMSAs.

7.2 Population density

The population density serves as the second suburbanization indicator. As shown in

Table 7-4, the gross population densities among US metropolitan areas vary in a wide range. In

1990, Jersey City, New Jersey contains the highest density in this country of approximately

11855 people per square mile, while Flagstaff, Arizona/Utah has only about 4 persons per

square mile. In 2000, Jersey City, New Jersey remains the densest place of US with about

13044 persons per square mile, and the least dense city is still Flagstaff, Arizona/Utah where

only about 5 persons per square mile.

Table 7-4. Descriptive statistics of the gross population density: 1990 to 2000
Gross population density Mean Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum
1990 1001.606 1644.454 4.500 11855.27
2000 1064.831 1752.25 5.412 13043.62
*Note: mean of gross population density is weighted by the number of total
households in MSA/PMSAs.
 87

The gross population density in US also reveals variations by region and size of

metropolitan areas. As shown in Table 7-5, small metropolitan areas in Middle Atlantic and

New England divisions have the highest mean population densities in 2000, while their

counterparts in West North Central, West South Central, Mountain, and East South Central

divisions contain the least values of gross population density. Especially, the mean density of

small metropolitan areas in Middle Atlantic is more than five times higher than the one in West

North Central. As to medium sized metropolitan areas in US, the highest three mean densities

are found in Pacific, South Atlantic, and Middle Atlantic divisions. West North Central division

still possesses the least mean density, and Mountain division has the second smallest value. The

mean population densities of large metropolitan areas in Middle Atlantic, New England, East

North Central, and Pacific divisions are significantly higher compared to other divisions. On

the contrary, large metropolitan areas in Mountain division are least dense in this country. In

general, metropolitan areas in east and west costal divisions, such as New England, Middle

Atlantic, and Pacific divisions, are much denser compared to their counterparts in other interior

divisions. Regardless of their location, larger metropolitan areas usually tend to have relatively

higher population densities.

Regarding the change of population density in US metropolitan areas over the last

decade, Table 7-4 seems to indicate an increasing trend: the national mean rises from about

1002 people per square mile in 1990 to roughly 1065 persons per square mile in 2000.

However, this increase actually is only an artifact that is caused by the consistent metropolitan

boundary approach used in calculation. By assigning the fixed 2000 metropolitan boundaries to

1990 data, the land area in every metropolitan area actually remains constant. Thus the

increasing in national mean of population density is more a reflection of the urban population
 88

growth during the last ten years, rather than a sign of greater metropolitan crowdedness

considering urban boundary expansions that actually happened.

Table 7-5. Mean* gross total population density in 2000

by census divisions and metropolitan size
Metropolitan size**
Census divisions Small Medium Large
New England 863.897 N/A*** 1685.059
Middle Atlantic 1088.769 844.626 5734.629
East North Central 376.021 688.798 1454.544
West North Central 200.409 328.523 450.859
South Atlantic 323.853 877.262 769.134
East South Central 267.415 N/A N/A
West South Central 243.072 491.952 641.791
Mountain 252.924 343.974 223.148
Pacific 323.294 1323.842 1359.165
*The means are weighted by the number of total households
in MSA/PMSAs.
**Metropolitan areas contain less than 500,000 total households
are regarded as small; those contain 500,000 to 1,000,000 total
households are regarded as medium; and those contain more than
1,000,000 total households are regarded as large.
***N/A represents no metropolitan area in a certain size is found
in a certain division.

Nevertheless, the gross population density based upon the consistent metropolitan

boundary approach is still appropriate for cross-sectional analyses, since it efficiently captures

the existing differences of population concentration between metropolitan areas at a static time

point. For instance, Dallas with 569 people per square mile in 2000 is considered much less

dense than New York where 8159 persons living in every square mile at the same time.

However, for the first-difference fixed-effects estimations that focus on changes of variables

over time, this computation method may lead to potential measurement bias and misleading

interpretation. The estimated central city density is regarded as a better measure of density

change and thus is utilized as a substitute to gross population density in the first-difference

fixed-effects analyses.
 89

The estimated central city density is generated by the urban density gradient calculation.

As shown in Table 7-6, the simple average values of central city densities for the whole nation

reveal a moderate decline from 1990 to 2000. Among the 325 metropolitan areas, 183 of them

(about 56.31 percent) experienced declines in estimated central city density. This trend is

generally consistent with the findings about diminishing central city density in the course of

time from many earlier studies (Berry et al, 1974; Edmonston, Goldberg, and Mercer 1985).

However, the picture becomes a bit blurred when the mean of central city density are weighted

by the metropolitan size that measured as total households number. The last column in Table 7-

6 demonstrates two weighted means of central city density for 1990 and 2000 that are almost

the same.

Table 7-6. Mean values of the estimated central city density: 90 to 2000
Estimated central city density Simple mean Weighted mean*
1990 3432.585 6065.905
2000 3380.869 6085.590
*Note: the weights are total numbers of households in MSA/PMSAs.

In fact, this vague picture reflects the complicated impacts of metropolitan size on

central city density change. On the one hand, growing population in a metropolitan area usually

leads to higher density in its central cities. On the other hand, as a metropolitan area expands,

people tend to move to peripheral areas and leave the central cities less crowded. These two

simultaneous effects largely “wash out” each other and make the observed tendency of

declining central city density fairly weak. The following Figure 7-1 illustrates a graphic version

of the above discussion. The fitted lines30 with positive slope clearly indicate that estimated

30 The fitted lines shown in Figure 7-1 are predicted by a simple OLS regression as following:
Pooled estimated central city density = B0 + B1*Year + B2*Log(population); where the Year
dummy variable is coded as 1 for 2000, and 0 for 1990. The coefficient of the Log(population)
 90

central city density increase with total metropolitan population in both 1990 and 2000;

meanwhile, holding metropolitan size constant, the 2000’s estimated central city density

appears smaller than the 1990’s, although the difference is not statistically significant. Thus,

when examining the change in density for a particular city, growing population leads to an

increase in core density that offsets the systemic shift toward lower central density.
9.5
Estimated Central City Density
9

1990 fitted line

2000 fitted line

8 8.5
7.5

11 12 13 14 15 16
log(population)

Fitted Value 1990 Fitted Value 2000

Figure 7-1. Predicted central city density by population scale: 1990-2000

Note: both estimated central city density and population are measured
in natural log form.

7.3 Exclusivity of local zoning

Another suburbanization indicator is the exclusivity of local zoning regimes. Due to

lack of national data for exclusionary zoning policies by local governments, total number of

local governments within a certain metropolitan area and number of local governments per

100,000 households serve as two alternative proxy variables measuring zoning regime in this

is 0.364 and significant at 1 percent confidence level. The coefficient of the Year dummy
 91

study. The latter one is just a rescaled version of the earlier one. Table 7-7 presents the basic

descriptive statistics of these two proxy variables.

Both variables vary in a wide range. For example, Chicago had 316 total local

governments in 1990, while there was only one in San Angelo, Texas. As to the number of

local governments per 100,000 households, the minimum value of 2.55 was found in New York

in 1990, and Joplin, Missouri had the highest value as 79.05. Apparently, the range of total

number of local governments is relatively wider. Moreover, the national mean of total number

of local governments increased slightly from 85.7 in 1990 to 88.4 in 2000; whereas the national

mean of number of governments per 100,000 households declined moderately from 14.7 in

1990 to 13.7.

Table 7-7. Descriptive statistics of the local zoning regimes: 1990 to 2000
Zoning regime Mean Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum
Total number of governments
1990 85.659 79.555 1 316
2000 88.362 78.799 3 319
Number of governments
per 100,000 households
1990 14.716 9.639 2.555 79.051
2000 13.714 9.261 2.596 75.195
*Note: means are weighted by the number of total households in MSA/PMSAs.

Furthermore, both variables vary with metropolitan size; however, in an opposite

manner. As shown in Table 7-8, the means of total number of local governments positively

relate with the sizes of metropolitan areas. Both 1990 and 2000 data indicate that larger

metropolitan areas have more local governments overall. In contrast, the means of number of

local governments per 100,000 households decrease as metropolitan sizes increase in both

variable is -0.059, but not significant.

 92

years. These two opposite patterns together reveal a nonlinear relationship between number of

local governments and size of metropolitan areas: the number of overall local governments

increases as metropolitan size increases, however, in a decreasing rate.

The means of the local government variables increased slightly regardless of size of

metropolitan areas. Relatively small metropolitan areas that contain total households between

62,500 and 125,000 experienced the largest rise of 9.75 percent. The means of number of local

governments per 100,000 households, on the contrary, declined a little from 1990 to 2000 for

every group of metropolitan areas. The sharpest drop, which is about 9.70 percent, happened in

the largest metropolitan areas with more than 1,000,000 households.

Table 7-8. Total number of governments and number of governments per 100,000 households
by size of metropolitan areas: 1990 to 2000
Mean of number of governments Total number of Number of governments
governments per 100,000 households
Number of households % %
in an MSA/PMSA in 2000 1990 2000 Change 1990 2000 Change
More than 1,000,000 161.3 164.5 1.98 10.10 9.12 -9.70
Between 500,000 and 1,000,000 84.28 89.43 6.11 12.53 11.81 -5.75
Between 250,000 and 500,000 52.12 54.56 4.68 15.96 14.56 -8.77
Between 125,000 and 250,000 27.72 29.57 6.67 17.53 16.41 -6.39
Between 62,500 and 125,000 16.61 18.23 9.75 21.25 20.08 -5.51
Less than 62,500 12.69 13.73 8.20 29.21 28.35 -2.94
*The means are weighted by the number of total households in MSA/PMSAs.

Additionally, Table 7-9 demonstrates the regional variations of these two proxy

variables. The highest numbers of local government per MSA/PMSAs are observed in West

North Central, East North Central, and Middle Atlantic divisions in 1990 and 2000.

Metropolitan areas in Mountain division have the least mean of number of local governments in

both years; however, they experienced the most dramatically raise about 29.16 percent over the

ten years. On the other hand, metropolitan areas in West North Central and East South Central
 93

divisions have the largest means of per 100,000 households local governments number in both

1990 and 2000. The least two mean values of this variable are found in Pacific and New

England divisions for both years. Again, for every division, the mean values of overall local

governments number increased over the last decade, whereas the mean values of per 100,000

households local governments number slightly declined.

Table 7-9. Total number of governments and number of governments

per 100,000 households by census divisions: 1990 to 2000
Mean Total number of Number of governments
governments per 100,000 households
Census divisions 1990 2000 %Change 1990 2000 %Change
New England 42.75 42.87 0.28 9.54 8.92 -6.50
Middle Atlantic 115.68 119.90 3.65 15.41 15.05 -2.34
East North Central 127.13 127.63 0.39 16.69 15.19 -8.99
West North Central 133.51 133.75 0.18 26.57 23.67 -10.91
South Atlantic 76.42 83.15 8.81 14.28 12.83 -10.15
East South Central 44.35 45.28 2.10 19.64 17.30 -11.91
West South Central 64.68 70.32 8.72 15.85 14.91 -5.93
Mountain 33.16 42.83 29.16 11.70 11.74 0.34
Pacific 67.49 71.02 5.23 9.37 9.37 0.00
*The means are weighted by the number of total households in MSA/PMSAs.

7.4 Homogeneity of new development

The fourth suburbanization indicator is the homogeneity of new development. As

discussed in Chapter 5, the variable measuring this dimension is the weighted mean of housing

value quartile ratios in the most recently developed suburban neighborhoods in MSA/PMSAs.

As illustrated in Table 7-10, this indicator obtains very similar national mean values in 1990

and in 2000. Also, 2000 calculation yields smaller numbers in both range and standard

deviation, representing the most newly developed suburban neighborhoods between different

metropolitan areas in 2000 are more similar to each other in terms of the homogeneity of their

housing units.
 94

Table 7-10. Descriptive statistics of homogeneity of new development: 1990 to 2000

Homogeneity of new development Mean Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum
1990 1.635 0.479 1.351 3.420
2000 1.658 0.157 1.353 3.232
*Note: mean of homogeneity of new development is weighted by the number of
total households in MSA/PMSAs.

The following Table 7-11 summarizes the homogeneity of newly developed

neighborhoods by Census divisions. The fairly small mean value in every division indicates

that throughout the whole nation the newly built suburban neighborhoods in metropolitan areas

are pretty homogeneous. The regional variations are quite moderate in both 1990 and 2000,

with only East South Central and West South Central divisions obtaining slightly higher mean

values compared to other areas.

Table 7-11. Homogeneity of newly

developed suburban neighborhoods
by census divisions: 1990 to 2000
Mean
Census divisions 1990 2000
New England 1.512 1.628
Middle Atlantic 1.608 1.693
East North Central 1.657 1.668
West North Central 1.627 1.642
South Atlantic 1.670 1.686
East South Central 1.739 1.767
West South Central 1.703 1.751
Mountain 1.532 1.505
Pacific 1.574 1.569
*Means are weighted by the number
of total households in MSA/PMSAs.

The picture of how the homogeneity of new development varies with metropolitan area

size is neither very clear. Table 7-12 exhibits fairly moderate differences in the mean values of

this variable among metropolitan areas with various sizes. At most, it seems the relatively small

metropolitan areas tend to have more heterogeneous newly built suburban neighborhoods
 95

relative to the medium and large ones. For instance, metropolitan areas that have less than

125,000 total households obtain higher mean values around 1.7 and 1.8, compared with mean

values about 1.6 for their counterparts with larger size.

Table 7-12. Homogeneity of new development by

size of metropolitan areas: 1990 to 2000
Number of households Mean
in an MSA/PMSA in 2000 1990 2000
More than 1,000,000 1.569 1.629
Between 500,000 and 1,000,000 1.626 1.617
Between 250,000 and 500,000 1.599 1.628
Between 125,000 and 250,000 1.693 1.712
Between 62,500 and 125,000 1.741 1.722
Less than 62,500 1.811 1.819
*Means are weighted by the number of total
households in MSA/PMSAs.

Interestingly, the homogeneity of newly developed suburban neighborhoods varies with

the mean household income levels of metropolitan areas. All MSA/PMSAs are categorized into

four groups based upon their mean household income in 2000. In general the metropolitan

areas belonging to the upper quartiles are considered wealthier or better-off regarding their

economic wellbeing than the ones falling into the lower quartiles. As demonstrated in Table 7-

13, in both 1990 and 2000, the mean values of this variable lessen when moving upward along

the quartile rank. In other words, most recently built suburban neighborhoods in richer

metropolitan areas tend to be more homogeneous than the ones in cities with lower mean

household income level; yet the differences are fairly small.

 96

Table 7-13. Homogeneity of new development by the

mean household income in 2000 of metropolitan areas
Mean household income Mean
in an MSA/PMSA in 2000 1990 2000
First quartile 1.886 1.825
Second quartile 1.717 1.761
Third quartile 1.640 1.639
Fourth quartile 1.580 1.620
*Means are weighted by the number of total
households in MSA/PMSAs.

7.5 Inaccessibility of jobs

The inaccessibility of jobs serves as the fifth indicator of suburbanization, which is

measured by the length of average daily commuting time of the central city residents31 in

metropolitan areas in this study. Table 7-14 indicates that the national mean of daily

commuting time for central city residents was 21.6 minutes in 1990. After ten years, the

national mean value becomes 24.5 minutes, increasing about 13.23 percent. This rising trend is

quite widespread as well; among the 325 metropolitan areas, 322 of them (about 99.08 percent)

experienced increasing in daily commuting length. Furthermore, the central city residents of

Bismarck, North Dakota and Grand Forks, North Dakota/Minnesota had the least daily travel

time as 11.4 minutes in 1990 and 13.3 minutes in 2000 respectively. For both years, New York

central city residents suffered for the longest average commutes of 36.4 and 39.9 minutes daily.

Table 7-14. Descriptive statistics of the inaccessibility of jobs

Average commuting time Mean Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum
1990 21.622 5.099 11.359 36.383
2000 24.483 5.560 13.254 39.915
*Note: mean of inaccessibility to jobs is weighted by the number of total
households in MSA/PMSAs.

31 As discussed in Chapter 5, in this study, “central city residents” particularly refer to

employed population that are 16 years old or older, work outside home, and reside in central
cities within a metropolitan area.
 97

Additionally, Table 7-15 below explores potential regional variations of this indicator.

Among the nine Census divisions, Middle Atlantic and Pacific divisions possessed the longest

two average daily commuting times in both 1990 and 2000; while West North Central and East

South Central divisions, in contrast, had the shortest two daily travel times in both years. For all

divisions, the mean travel time per day for central city residents increased over the ten years,

but with different speed. For instance, New England division had the fastest raise as 17.49

percent, whereas West North Central division experienced the least increase by only 9.62

percent.

Table 7-15. Inaccessibility of jobs by census division: 90-2000

Mean
Census divisions 1990 2000 Percent change
New England 20.312 23.864 17.49
Middle Atlantic 25.850 29.199 12.96
East North Central 21.666 24.376 12.51
West North Central 18.435 20.209 9.62
South Atlantic 20.628 23.957 16.14
East South Central 18.310 20.561 12.29
West South Central 20.417 22.885 12.09
Mountain 19.326 22.181 14.77
Pacific 22.790 25.953 13.88
*Means are weighted by the number of total households in
MSA/PMSAs.

Furthermore, the average daily commuting time of central city residents also varies by

the size of metropolitan areas. Like indicated in Table 7-16, in both 1990 and 2000, the mean

values of daily travel length become bigger when the sizes of metropolitan areas increase. On

average, the central city residents of super large metropolitan areas that contain more than

1,000,000 households need to spend roughly ten more minutes per day on their way to work,

compared with their counterparts who live in really small metropolitan areas where less than

62,500 households dwell in. Additionally, the mean daily travel length became longer over the
 98

last decade for central city residents in all different metropolitan size groups; and the increasing

rates among different metropolitan size groups were pretty similar in general.

Table 7-16. Inaccessibility of jobs by size of metropolitan areas: 90-2000

Number of households in an Mean
MSA/PMSA in 2000 1990 2000 Percent change
More than 1,000,000 26.605 29.806 12.03
Between 500,000 and 1,000,000 22.244 25.334 13.89
Between 250,000 and 500,000 18.588 21.087 13.44
Between 125,000 and 250,000 18.264 20.941 14.66
Between 62,500 and 125,000 16.700 19.364 15.95
Less than 62,500 15.256 17.376 13.90
*Means are weighted by the number of total households in MSA/PMSAs.

7.6 Relatively rapid growth of the periphery

The last suburban indicator is the relatively rapid growth of the peripheral suburbs,

which examines the differences of population growth rates between central cities and suburban

areas for each MSA/PMSA. Over the last ten years, the national average population growth rate

of US central cities is only about 8 percent (see Table 7-17), while the national mean suburban

population growth rate reaches 18.2 percent. In fact, there are many central cities even declined

during this period (Kingsley and Pettit 2002). Among the 325 metropolitan areas examined in

this study, 250 of them (about 76.92 percent) have faster growth in their suburban areas. On

average, American population growth in suburbs is about ten percent faster than in central

cities.

Table 7-17. Comparison of central cities growth rate,

suburbs growth rate, and relatively rapid growth rate
National mean**
Central cities growth rate* 7.975
Suburbs growth rate 18.182
Relatively rapid growth rate 10.207
*All these three growth rates are expressed in
percentage forms.
**The national means are weighted by the average
of 1990 and 2000 total households numbers.
 99

Besides the national mean, Table 7-18 shows that this relatively rapid growth of the

periphery indicator varies quite widely. The standard deviation is about 13 percentage points.

Some metropolitan areas experienced dramatic suburban population growth relative to their

central cities during the past ten years. For example, population in suburbs in Naples, Florida

increased by 73.76 percent, while its central city population only grew by 7.5 percent, granting

it the fastest relative growth rate (66 percent) in the whole country as.

Table 7-18. Descriptive statistics of the relatively rapid growth rate (90-2000)
Mean Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum
Relatively rapid growth 10.207 13.126 -152.485 66.223
*Note: mean of relatively rapid growth rate is weighted by the average of
1990 and 2000 total households numbers in MSA/PMSAs, and expressed
in percentage form.

Furthermore, Table 7-19 tries to explore the variation patterns of this indicator by

summarizing it by Census divisions and metropolitan areas’ sizes. However, the whole picture

is not very clear. Small metropolitan areas in East South Central division had the fastest relative

population growth in their suburbs on average, whereas their counterparts in Pacific division

experienced a slight decline in their mean relatively rapid growth rate. Medium metropolitan

areas in South Atlantic and West South Central division obtained the highest and lowest

average relative population growth rates respectively. As to large metropolitan areas, in terms

of mean values, those located in Mountain division had most rapidly grown suburbs and the

others located in Pacific, New England, and Middle Atlantic divisions had the most slowly

population increase in their suburbs compared with their central cities.

 100

Table 7-19. Mean* relatively rapid growth rate by census divisions

and size of metropolitan areas
Metropolitan size**
Census divisions Small Medium Large
New England 8.835 N/A*** 2.479
Middle Atlantic 10.823 8.802 2.594
East North Central 10.010 15.137 10.865
West North Central 4.141 13.834 17.488
South Atlantic 8.095 20.467 24.814
East South Central 16.389 N/A N/A
West South Central 10.865 2.607 17.779
Mountain 10.577 8.777 34.099
Pacific -4.174 5.425 2.366
*The means are weighted by the average number of 1990 and 2000
total households in MSA/PMSAs, and expressed in percentage forms.
**Metropolitan areas contain less than 500,000 total households are
regarded as small; those contain 500,000 to 1,000,000 total households
are regarded as medium; and those contain more than 1,000,000 total
households are regarded as large.
***N/A represents no metropolitan area in a certain size is found in
a certain division.

Overall, based upon the discussions above, the six suburbanization indicators coarsely

portrayed a picture of suburban development in the metropolitan areas in this country during

the last decade. The urban density gradients and the estimated central city densities for most

metropolitan areas declined. The length of average daily commuting time of the central city

residents increased slightly. In addition, suburbs in most of metropolitan areas have faster

growth rates compared to their inner cities.

The discussions in earlier sections also reveal that these suburbanization indicators have

diverse regional variations; however, all of them have strong relationships with the size of

metropolitan areas. These strong correlations between suburbanization indicators and

metropolitan size introduce potential multicollinearity problem into the regression analyses that

is discussed later in the Chapter 8, and make it harder to net out the impacts of suburbanization

on economic segregation.
 CHAPTER 8

ESTIMATION PROCEDURES AND EMPIRICAL RESULTS

To investigate the effects of suburbanization indicators on economic segregation and to

test the hypotheses discussed in Chapter 4, three series of regression models based upon

different estimation techniques are employed. The first two sets of cross-sectional regressions

emphasize the static differences between metropolitan areas, whereas the later one set of fixed-

effects estimations focus on the within metropolitan area changes over time. The following

Sections 8.1 and 8.2 elaborate the estimation procedures and results of the cross-sectional

regressions and the first-difference, fixed-effects analyses respectively.

8.1 Cross-sectional regression analyses

First, I employ two different sets of cross-sectional regressions to test the hypotheses

listed in Chapter 4. In the first set of cross-sectional regressions, I calculate the Neighborhood

Sorting Index (NSI) in both 1990 and 2000 for non-Hispanic Whites and other racial/ethnic

groups, Blacks, and Hispanics respectively, for all metropolitan areas in US that had at least

10,000 households for that group in that year. Considering the limited degrees of freedom, the

six resulting sets of NSI32 are pooled together as the dependent variables, and regressed against

a set of dummy variables for race, year, and their interaction terms. Then variables measuring

32 The six resulting sets of NSI are: Whites and others, 1990; Blacks, 1990; Hispanics, 1990;
Whites and others, 2000; Blacks, 2000; Hispanics, 2000.
101
 102

suburban development, metropolitan context, structural economic characteristics, and social

distance and inequality are added sequentially.

However, only five suburbanization indicators33 are employed in the first set of cross-

sectional models; the sixth indicator – the relatively rapid growth of the periphery – is excluded

from these regressions. The relatively rapid growth indicator measures the differences between

suburban and central city population growth rates over the 1990s. Since the dependent variable

in the first set of regressions includes 1990 NSI values, it would be inappropriate to use the

relatively rapid growth indicator that measures change over the period as a regressor to explain

the different economic segregation levels at the beginning of the period. Of course, one could

attempt to calculate this variable over the 1980s; but projecting 2000 MSA/PMSA and central

city boundaries back onto the 1980 data is very problematic due to boundary changes.

Therefore, I employ a separate second set of cross-sectional regressions to investigate

the effect of the relatively rapid growth of the periphery on economic segregation. In these

regressions, only the 2000 NSI values for non-Hispanic Whites and other racial/ethnic groups,

Blacks, and Hispanics are pooled together as the dependent variables, and then regressed

against a set of dummy variables for race, all the six suburbanization indicators, and other

groups of variables controlling for metropolitan context, structural economic characteristics,

and social distance and inequality are added sequentially.

Additionally, one of the suburbanization indicators – the exclusivity of local zoning

regimes – is measured by two alternative proxy variables: total number of local governments

and number of local governments per 100,000 households. For the first set of cross-sectional

33 These five suburbanization indicators are: the urban density gradient, the population density,
the homogeneity of new growth, the exclusivity of local zoning, and the inaccessibility of jobs.
 103

regressions where 1990 and 2000 NSI from different racial/ethnic groups are pooled together as

the dependent variable, I firstly use the number of local governments per 100,000 households

and present the estimation results in Table 8-1, then replicate the regression models by using

the total number of local governments and report the results in Appendix D. Similarly, for the

second set of cross-sectional models where only the pooled 2000 NSI from different

racial/ethnic groups are dependent variable, the number of local governments per 100,000

households is firstly used in the regressions presented in Table 8-2 and then is substituted by

the total number of local governments in the regressions shown in Appendix E.

To deal with the heteroskedasticity associated with size of the metropolitan area, all

regressions are weighted by the square root of the number of households entering into the

calculation of the dependent variable, which is NSI in this study. Additionally, because of the

pooling method, some observations from the same metropolitan area may not be independent to

each other; the standard errors are adjusted to allow for covariance of these observations.

8.1.1 Variable descriptions

The following variables are used in the first set of cross-sectional estimates highlighted

in Table 8-1 in this Section.

Dependent variable:

NSImry = The Neighborhood Sorting Index, where m indexes metropolitan

areas, r indexes racial/ethnic groups (non-Hispanic White and other,
Black, or Hispanic), and y indexes year (1990 or 2000).

Dummy variables of race, year, and their interactions:

BLK = Race dummy variable34: 1 if Black; 0 otherwise.

34 Only two race dummy variables are included in the cross-sectional regression analyses; the
non-Hispanic White and others is omitted as the base case.
 104

HSP = Race dummy variable: 1 if Hispanics; 0 otherwise.

YR = Year dummy variable: 1 if 2000; 0 if 1990.

BLK_YR = Interaction term of BLK and YR: 1 if Black and 2000; 0

otherwise.

HSP_YR = Interaction term of HSP and YR: 1 if Hispanics and 2000; 0

otherwise.

Suburbanization indicators:

DENGRAD = The urban density gradient.

DEN_SCL = The gross population density (measured in persons per square

mile) divided by one hundred35.

SQDEN_SCL = Square of the gross population density divided by one hundred.

GOVT_SCL36 = Alternative proxy variable measuring the exclusivity of local

zoning regimes: number of local governments per 100,000
households.

GOVT = Proxy variable measuring the exclusivity of local zoning regimes:

total number of local governments.

HSVVARRAT = Measure of the homogeneity of new development: weighted mean

of housing value quartile ratios in the most recently developed
suburban neighborhoods.

AVTM_CC = Measure of the inaccessibility of jobs: length (measured in

minutes) of average daily commuting time of the central city
residents.

Metropolitan context:

NEWEND = Census division dummy variable37: 1 if New England division; 0

otherwise.

35 To minimize the potential computational errors caused by variation in the scale of

regressors, both density and its square term are re-scaled by dividing by 100.
36 GOVT_SCL is used in regressions shown in Table 8-1; the estimation results using GOVT
as a substitute for GOVT_SCL is presented in Appendix D.
37 Only eight census division variables are included in the cross-sectional regression analyses;
the Pacific division is omitted as the base case.
 105

MIDATL = Census division dummy variable: 1 if Middle Atlantic division; 0

otherwise.

ESTNCT = Census division dummy variable: 1 if East North Central division;

0 otherwise.

WSTNCT = Census division dummy variable: 1 if West North Central

division; 0 otherwise.

STHATL = Census division dummy variable: 1 if South Atlantic division; 0

otherwise.

ESTSCT = Census division dummy variable: 1 if East South Central division;

0 otherwise.

WSTSCT = Census division dummy variable: 1 if West South Central

division; 0 otherwise.

MOUNTN = Census division dummy variable: 1 if Mountain division; 0

otherwise.

AGEPOPRAT = Aged population ratio: percentage of total population over 65

AGEHSRAT = Old housing stock ratio: percentage of housing units built before
1939.

HHSSIZ = Larger households ratio: percentage of total households including

more than 4 members.

INMGRRAT = Recent in-migration rate: proportion metropolitan residents age

five or older who lived outside the metropolitan area 5 years before
the base year of the decade.

INTRNRAT = Internal turnover rate: proportion of metropolitan residents age

five or older (excluding the in-migrants) who moved within the
metropolitan area in the previous 5 years.

POPSCAL_N = Log of total population.

 106

Structural economic characteristics:

MHHSINC_SCL = Mean household income (measured in 2000 US Dollars) divided

by one thousand38.

SQMHI_SCL = Square of mean household income divided by one hundred.

MANUFCTRAT = Manufacturing employment ratio: percentage of total employed

civilians age sixteen or older who worked in manufacturing
industry.

MNGPRFRAT = Management and professional related occupation ratio: proportion

of total employed civilians age sixteen or older who were engaged
in management, professional, and related occupations.

Social distance and inequality:

POVRAT = Poverty rate within racial/ethnic groups.

GINI_I = Gini coefficients.

Most of the variables listed above are also used in the second set of cross-sectional

regressions presented in Table 8-2 in this Section, except for YR, BLK_YR, and HSP_YR.

Since only the pooled 2000 NSI values serve as dependent variable in the second set of models,

the year dummy variable and the interaction terms between year and race become unnecessary

and are excluded from the regressions. The dependent variable and the relatively rapid growth

indicator are shown below:

NSImr = The Neighborhood Sorting Index value in 2000, where m indexes

metropolitan areas and r indexes racial/ethnic groups (non-Hispanic
White and other, Black, or Hispanic).

RAPIDGW = Measure of the relatively rapid growth of the periphery:

differences of population growth rates between central cities and
suburban areas.

38 To minimize the potential computational errors caused by variation in the scale of

regressors, mean household income is re-scaled by dividing by 1000 and its square term is re-
scaled by dividing by 100.
 107

All the variables discussed above are calculated at the metropolitan area level. The

specific computation methods of these variables are thoroughly discussed in preceding Chapter

5; especially, the expected signs of the coefficients for independent variables are shown in

Table 5-7. In addition, the basic descriptive statistics of the independent variables included in

the first set of cross-sectional models are presented in Appendix F, and the basic descriptive

statistics of the independent variables included in the second set of cross-sectional regressions

are presented in Appendix G.

8.1.2 Estimation equations

The following six equations correspond to the first series of six cross-sectional models

shown in Table 8-1 in this Section. In Equation 1, the pooled NSI is regressed against a set of

dummy variables for race, year, and their interaction terms only. This regression, in effect,

recreates the upper panel in Table 6-2 in preceding Chapter 6, with the coefficients representing

unconditional differences between the cells of that panel. Then the cross-sectional model is re-

estimated by adding five suburbanization indicators39 (see Equation 2). After that, variables

controlling for metropolitan context (except population scale), structural economic

characteristics, and social distance and inequality are added sequentially into the estimations

shown in Equation 3, 4, and 5. As discussed in previous Chapter 7, the size of metropolitan

areas is closely correlated with all the suburbanization indicators and many other control

variables. Thus the log of total population is excluded from earlier equations and finally added

39 These five suburbanization indicators are: the urban density gradient, the population density,
the homogeneity of new growth, the exclusivity of local zoning, and the inaccessibility of jobs;
only the relatively rapid growth of the periphery is excluded from the regressions.
 108

in Equation 6 to demonstrate the special effect of this dimension of metropolitan context

scenario.

Equation 1

NSI mry
=β + 0 1
(BLK) + 2
(HSP) + 3
(YR) + 4
(BLK_YR) + 5
(HSP_YR) + u i

Equation 2

NSI mry
= β + β ( BLK ) + β ( HSP) + β (YR) + β ( BLK _ YR) + β ( HSP _ YR)
0 1 2 3 4 5

+ 6
(DENGRAD) + 7
(DEN_SCL) + 8
(SQDEN_SCL)
+ 9
(GOVT_SCL) + 10
(HSVVARRAT) + 11
(AVTM_CC) + u i

Equation 3

NSI = β + β ( BLK) + β ( HSP) + β (YR) + β ( BLK _ YR) + β (HSP _ YR)

mry 0 1 2 3 4 5

+ β ( DENGRAD) + β ( DEN _ SCL) + β (SQDEN _ SCL) + β (GOVT _ SCL)

6 7 8 9

+ β ( HSVVARRAT) + β ( AVTM _ CC) +

10 11 12
(NEWENG)+ 13
(MIDATL)
+ 14
(ESTNCT)+ 15
(WSTNCT)+ 16
(STHATL)+ 17
(ESTSCT)
+ 18
(WSTSCT)+ 19
(MOUNTN)+ 20
(AGEPOPRAT) + 21
(AGEHSRAT)
+ 22
(HHSSIZ)+ 23
(INMGRRAT)+ 24
(INTRNRAT)+ u i

Equation 4

NSI mry
= β + β ( BLK ) + β ( HSP) + β (YR) + β ( BLK _ YR) + β ( HSP _ YR)
0 1 2 3 4 56

+ β ( DENGRAD) + β ( DEN _ SCL) + β ( SQDEN _ SCL) + β (GOVT _ SCL)

6 7 8 9

+ β ( HSVVARRAT) + β ( AVTM _ CC) + β ( NEWENG) + β (MIDATL)

10 11 12 13

+ β ( ESTNCT ) + β (WSTNCT ) + β ( STHATL) + β ( ESTSCT )

14 15 16 17

+ β (WSTSCT ) + β ( MOUNTN) + β ( AGEPOPRAT) + β ( AGEHSRAT)

18 19 20 21

+ β ( HHSSIZ) + β ( INMGRRAT) + β ( INTRNRAT) +

22 23 24 25
(MHHSINC_SCL)
+ 26
(SQMHI_SCL) + 27
(MANUFCTRAT) + 28
(MNGPRFRAT) + u i

Equation 5

NSI mry
= β + β ( BLK ) + β ( HSP) + β (YR) + β ( BLK _ YR) + β ( HSP _ YR)
0 1 2 3 4 5

+ β ( DENGRAD) + β ( DEN _ SCL) + β ( SQDEN _ SCL) + β (GOVT _ SCL)

6 7 8 9

+ β ( HSVVARRAT) + β ( AVTM _ CC ) + β ( NEWENG) + β (MIDATL)

10 11 12 13

+ β ( ESTNCT ) + β (WSTNCT) + β (STHATL) + β ( ESTSCT )

14 15 16 17

+ β (WSTSCT) + β ( MOUNTN) + β ( AGEPOPRAT) + β ( AGEHSRAT)

18 19 20 21

+ β ( HHSSIZ) + β ( INMGRRAT) + β ( INTRNRAT) + β ( MHHSINC _ SCL)

22 23 24 25

+ β ( SQMHI _ SCL) + β (MANUFCTRAT) + β (MNGPRFRAT)

26 27 28

+ 29
(POVRAT)+ 30
(GINI_I)+ u i
 109

Equation 6

NSI mry
= β + β ( BLK ) + β ( HSP) + β (YR) + β ( BLK _ YR) + β ( HSP _ YR)
0 1 2 3 4 5

+ β ( DENGRAD) + β ( DEN _ SCL) + β ( SQDEN _ SCL) + β (GOVT _ SCL)

6 7 8 9

+ β ( HSVVARRAT ) + β ( AVTM _ CC ) + β ( NEWENG) + β ( MIDATL)

10 11 12 13

+ β ( ESTNCT ) + β (WSTNCT ) + β ( STHATL) + β ( ESTSCT )

14 15 16 17

+ β (WSTSCT ) + β ( MOUNTN ) + β ( AGEPOPRAT ) + β ( AGEHSRAT )

18 19 20 21

+ β ( HHSSIZ ) + β ( INMGRRAT ) + β ( INTRNRAT ) + β ( MHHSINC _ SCL)

22 23 24 25

+ β ( SQMHI _ SCL) + β ( MANUFCTRAT ) + β ( MNGPRFRAT )

26 27 28

+ β ( POVRAT ) + β (GINI _ I ) +
29 30 31
(POPSCAL_N) + u i

Similarly, the six equations below correspond to the second set of six cross-sectional

regressions presented in Table 8-2 in this Section. In Equation 1, only the pooled 2000 NSI

serves as the dependent variable and is regressed against a set of dummy variables for race.

Then the model is re-estimated by adding all the six suburbanization indicators (see Equation

2). After that, variables controlling for metropolitan context (except population scale),

structural economic characteristics, and social distance and inequality are added sequentially

into the estimations shown in Equation 3, 4, and 5. Since the size of metropolitan areas is

closely correlated with all the suburbanization indicators and many other control variables, the

log of total population is excluded from earlier equations and finally added in Equation 6 to

demonstrate the special effect of this dimension of metropolitan context scenario.

Equation 1

NSI mr
=β + 0 1
(BLK) + 2
(HSP) + u i

Equation 2

NSI mr
= β + β ( BLK ) + β ( HSP ) +
0 1 2 3
(DENGRAD)
+ 4
(DEN_SCL) + 5
(SQDEN_SCL ) + 6
(GOVT_SCL)
+ 7
(HSVVARRAT ) + 8
(AVTM_CC) + 9
(RAPIDGW) + u i
 110

Equation 3

NSI = β + β ( BLK ) + β ( HSP) + β ( DENGRAD) + β ( DEN _ SCL)

mr 0 1 2 3 4

+ β ( SQDEN _ SCL) + β (GOVT _ SCL) + β ( HSVVARRAT ) + β ( AVTM _ CC )

5 6 7 8

+ β ( RAPIDGW ) +
9 10
(NEWENG) + 11
(MIDATL) + 12
(ESTNCT)
+ 13
(WSTNCT) + 14
(STHATL) + 15
(ESTSCT) + 16
(WSTSCT)
+ 17
(MOUNTN) + 18
(AGEPOPRAT) + 19
(AGEHSRAT) + 20
(HHSSIZ)
+ 21
(INMGRRAT) + 22
(INTRNRAT) + u i

Equation 4

NSI = β + β ( BLK ) + β ( HSP) + β ( DENGRAD) + β ( DEN _ SCL)

mr 0 1 2 3 4

+ β ( SQDEN _ SCL) + β (GOVT _ SCL) + β ( HSVVARRAT) + β ( AVTM _ CC )

5 6 7 8

+ β ( RAPIDGW) + β ( NEWENG) + β ( MIDATL) + β ( ESTNCT )

9 10 11 12

+ β (WSTNCT ) + β ( STHATL) + β ( ESTSCT ) + β (WSTSCT )

13 14 15 16

+ β ( MOUNTN) + β ( AGEPOPRAT) + β ( AGEHSRAT) + β ( HHSSIZ)

17 18 19 20

+ β ( INMGRRAT) + β ( INTRNRAT) +
21 22 23
(MHHSINC_SCL)
+ 24
(SQMHI_SCL) + 25
(MANUFCTRAT) + 26
(MNGPRFRAT) + u i

Equation 5

NSI = β + β ( BLK ) + β ( HSP) + β ( DENGRAD) + β ( DEN _ SCL)

mr 0 1 2 3 4

+ β ( SQDEN _ SCL) + β (GOVT _ SCL) + β ( HSVVARRAT) + β ( AVTM _ CC )

5 6 7 8

+ β ( RAPIDGW) + β ( NEWENG) + β ( MIDATL) + β ( ESTNCT )

9 10 11 12

+ β (WSTNCT ) + β (STHATL) + β ( ESTSCT ) + β (WSTSCT ) + β (MOUNTN)

13 14 15 16 17

+ β ( AGEPOPRAT) + β ( AGEHSRAT) + β ( HHSSIZ) + β ( INMGRRAT)

18 19 20 21

+ β ( INTRNRAT) + β ( MHHSINC _ SCL) + β (SQMHI _ SCL)

22 23 24

+ β ( MANUFCTRAT) + β ( MNGPRFRAT) +
25 26 27
(POVRAT) + 28
(GINI_I) + u i

Equation 6

NSI = β + β ( BLK ) + β ( HSP ) + β ( DENGRAD) + β ( DEN _ SCL)

mr 0 1 2 3 4

+ β ( SQDEN _ SCL) + β (GOVT _ SCL) + β ( HSVVARRAT ) + β ( AVTM _ CC )

5 6 7 8

+ β ( RAPIDGW ) + β ( NEWENG ) + β ( MIDATL) + β ( ESTNCT )

9 10 11 12

+ β (WSTNCT ) + β ( STHATL) + β ( ESTSCT ) + β (WSTSCT ) + β ( MOUNTN )

13 14 15 16 17

+ β ( AGEPOPRAT ) + β ( AGEHSRAT ) + β ( HHSSIZ ) + β ( INMGRRAT )

18 19 20 21

+ β ( INTRNRAT ) + β ( MHHSINC _ SCL) + β ( SQMHI _ SCL)

22 23 24

+ β ( MANUFCTRAT ) + β ( MNGPRFRAT ) + β ( POVRAT ) + β (GINI _ I )

25 26 27 28

+ 29
(POPSCAL_N) + u i
 111

8.1.3 Results discussion

Table 8-1 presents the results for the first set of six cross-sectional Weighted Least

Squares regression models. Model 1 includes only the dummy variables for race and year, and

their interactions. Therefore, the constant in this estimation represents the weighted mean of

NSI for Whites and other racial/ethnic groups in 1990 – 0.454. Compared to Whites and others,

both Blacks and Hispanics had significantly higher level within-group economic segregation in

1990. The weighted mean NSI for Blacks was 0.479 and the weighted mean NSI for Hispanics

was about 0.501. In this simple model, the coefficient of the year dummy variable represents

the component of the change in economic segregation common to all these four racial/ethnic

groups from 1990 to 2000 – a decrease of 0.077. There was no significant difference between

Blacks and the non-Hispanic White and other racial/ethnic groups in terms of magnitudes of the

decreases. However, economic segregation among Hispanics declined by 0.024 more than the

common decrease. The findings parallel those in the upper panel of Table 6-2 in preceding

Chapter 6.

Model 2 adds five indicators charactering suburbanization development patterns. Except

for the number of local governments per 100,000 households, all of the coefficients of these

indicators demonstrate expected directions and are statistically significant. The urban density

gradient is negatively associated with economic segregation levels. More suburbanized

metropolitan areas with less steep urban density gradients have higher levels of economic

segregation. This negative effect is statistically significant. The gross population density affects

economic segregation in a non-linear fashion as literature indicated. More specifically, the

coefficient of density is positive while the coefficient of its square term appears negative,

indicating economic segregation tends to rise when density increases, but in a decreasing rate.
 112

Both of these coefficients are significant. The homogeneity of new development is measured by

the weighted mean of housing value quartile ratios in the most recently developed suburban

neighborhoods; smaller values of this indicator represents more homogeneous development.

The highly significant negative coefficient of this variable indicates metropolitan areas with

more homogeneous newly built suburban neighborhoods have higher level of economics

segregation as expected. Furthermore, the coefficient of the inaccessibility of jobs is positive

and highly significant. The average daily commuting time of the central city residents increases

by 1 more minute in a metropolitan area, its economic segregation level rises by 0.008.

As a proxy of the exclusivity of local zoning policies, the number of local governments

per 100,000 households has an unexpected negative effect on economic segregation. Despite its

significance, the magnitude of this effect is very small; holding others constant, 1 more local

government per 100,000 households in a metropolitan area affect its economic segregation

level by only 0.001. As discussed in the previous Chapter 7 and shown in Appendix B, the

number of local governments per 100,000 households has a significant negative correlation

with the size of metropolitan areas, and this negative correlation possibly affects the

performance of this local zoning proxy. When the log of total population, which is a measure of

metropolitan size, is introduced in Model 6, the coefficient of the number of local governments

per 100,000 households becomes insignificant and extremely small in magnitude. Additionally,

the later discussions in this Section will show that the performances of two proxies of the

exclusivity of local zoning indicator actually are neither consistent nor stable in these cross-

sectional models. Thus I would not draw any conclusion regarding the effect of exclusionary

zoning regime on economic segregation based upon the cross-sectional estimations; rather,
 113

more accurate interpretations about this suburbanization indicator are discussed based on the

fixed-effects regression analyses in the next Section 8.2.

More interestingly, by controlling for these suburbanization indicators, the coefficient

of the year dummy variable dropped from -0.077 to -0.100 and was still highly significant. This

change demonstrates that the decrease in economic segregation would have been greater if the

suburbanization indicators had been constant. Additionally, the coefficients for the dummy

variables for Blacks and Hispanics decrease in magnitude and become insignificant after the

introduction of variables controlling for suburbanization patterns.

Model 3 includes variables to control for the geographic and spatial context of the

metropolitan area. A set of dummy variables for census division captures aspects of

metropolitan area economic structure and housing markets that vary by region. All of these

coefficients are positive and most of them are significant. For instance, compared to the Pacific

division that is the omitted category, the Middle Atlantic division had economic segregation

level that was 0.035 higher, assuming others constant. The highest coefficients appeared for the

West North Central division. Compared to the Pacific division, the West North Central division

had economic segregation level that was about 0.067 higher.

As expected, cities with high proportions of aged population had lower levels of

economic segregation. Also, metropolitan areas with high proportion of old housing stock had

smaller NSI values. The coefficient of larger household ratio variable is also negative. As

previous literature indicated, cities with high proportions of households including 4 members

and more had lower income segregation levels, since larger households tend to have lower

mobility. However, none of these three coefficients is significant. Furthermore, the two

variables focusing on the housing market dynamics performed as expected as well; the recent
 114

in-migration rate had a negative coefficient and the internal turnover rate had a positive

coefficient, and both of these coefficients are significant. Metropolitan areas with high

proportions of residents moving into the area had smaller NSI values; however, cities with high

proportions of residents moving within the metropolitan area had more economic segregation.

Model 4 introduces several proxies for structural economic characteristics. The

metropolitan area’s average household income affected the economic segregation level in a

nonlinear fashion40. The coefficient for mean household income is positive whereas the

coefficient for its square term is negative, indicating economic segregation rose when average

household income increased, but in a decreasing rate. In this model neither of these coefficients

is significant; however, the coefficients for both average household income and its square term

remained in the expected directions and became significant in the succeeding estimations.

Moreover, both of the variables focusing on the decentralization process had significant

impacts in the expected directions. Metropolitan areas with large share of jobs in manufacturing

sector had smaller values in NSI. On the contrary, cities with large share of jobs in professional

and management related occupations had a higher economic segregation level.

Model 5 adds two variables controlling for social distance and inequality: the group’s

poverty rate reflecting within-group social distance and the gini coefficient measuring overall

income inequality. Both had the expected sign (positive), but only the coefficient for gini

coefficient was statistically significant, supporting the hypothesis of increasing income

inequality leads to higher economic segregation within racial/ethnic groups.

40 Recall that NSI is based on deviations from the mean. Thus, the effect noted here is a
substantive effect of income on social behavior rather than a statistical artifact of the measure’s
construction.
 115

So far, Model 5 had included the major explanatory variables and all the control

variables except the total population scale. Until this model, most of the coefficients for

suburbanization indicators still remained the expected directions, and almost every coefficient

for the control variables had the anticipated signs as well. From Model 2 to Model 5,

continuously adding variables controlling for essential urban aspects, such as metropolitan

context, structural economic characteristics, and social distance and inequality, reduced the

potential left out variables bias. However, at the same time, this procedure also inevitably

introduced the multicollenearity problem into the regressions and increased the difficulty of

estimating coefficients for the variables included. For example, although the coefficients for

most of the suburban indicators consistently kept the expected signs through all these four

models, they gradually lost their individual significance. Even so, an F-test41 indicated that

although most of the suburbanization indicators did not have significant effects individually, as

a group, they still had significant joint impact on economic segregation.

Finally, Model 6 adds the log of total population as a proxy of metropolitan area size.

As expected, the coefficient for this variable was positive and highly significant, indicating

large metropolitan areas encompass greater differentiation of neighborhoods and have higher

level economic segregation. However, because all suburbanization measurements were

significantly correlated with the metropolitan area size42, the introduction of the total

population scale made the coefficients for the urban density gradient, the population density,

and the inaccessibility of jobs suddenly switch to the opposite signs. To solve this problem, the

first-difference fixed-effects estimations discussed in the next Section are employed as a better

41 The F-test for joint significance for suburbanization indicators is presented in Appendix A.
 116

approach to implicitly control for the metropolitan area size and the features associated with it

and help to net out the effects of suburbanization indicators on economic segregation more

clearly.

Furthermore, Table 8-2 presents the results for the second set of six cross-sectional

Weighted Least Squares regression models, where only the 2000 NSI values for different

racial/ethnic groups are pooled as the dependent variable and all the six suburbanization

indicators are included as the major independent variables. These regressions help to

investigate the effect of the relatively rapid growth of the periphery indicator on economic

segregation. As shown in Model 2, the relatively rapid growth of the periphery has a positive

coefficient that is highly significant, indicating a metropolitan area obtains higher income

segregation level as its suburbs experience more rapid growth relative to its city center.

However, since Model 3, the coefficient for this indicator lost its significance. The performance

of other suburbanization indicators remain largely the same as in the regressions presented in

Table 8-1. Except for the number of local governments per 100,000 households, all other

suburbanization indicators have the expected directions and are significant initially in Model 2.

However, as other control variables added from Model 3 to Model 5, they lost their

significance gradually. Even so, by an F-test43, I found that although most of the

suburbanization indicators did not have significant effect individually, as a group, they still had

significant joint impact on economic segregation. Again, since all suburbanization

measurements were significantly correlated with the metropolitan area size, the introduction of

the log of total population in Model 6 made the coefficients for the urban density gradient, the

42 Correlations between the suburbanization indicators and log of total population are
demonstrated in Table B-1 in Appendix B.
 117

population density and its square term, and the inaccessibility to jobs switch signs. Relative to

the cross-sectional regressions, the fixed-effects estimations discussed in the next Section

provide a better approach to implicitly control for the metropolitan area size and illustrate the

effects of suburbanization indicators on economic segregation more clearly.

Additionally, Appendix D and Appendix E use the total number of local governments as

the proxy of local exclusionary zoning regimes to substitute the number of local governments

per 100,000 households, and replicate the cross-sectional regressions shown in Table 8-1 and

Table 8-2 respectively. The estimation results of the alternative models shown in Appendix D

are consistent with the ones in Table 8-1 discussed previously, except the coefficients for the

total number of local governments became positive as expected. Put a different way, the sign of

coefficient for the exclusivity of local zoning indicator flipped when I alternated these two

proxies. A similar situation is found by comparing the regression results demonstrated in

Appendix E and Table 8-2. The inconsistency between the directions of coefficients for these

two alternative zoning proxies is related to the cross-sectional estimation structure and the fact

that both of these variables are very closely correlated with the metropolitan area size. Since

zoning laws are generally controlled by local jurisdictions and no adequate nation-wide zoning

data available among primary research in this field currently, these two proxy variables are still

employed for now. The succeeding Section in this Chapter illustrates that when estimated with

the fixed-effects models, alternating between these two proxies of exclusionary zoning regimes

yields consistent results. Thus I hesitate to draw any conclusion regarding the effect of

exclusionary zoning regime on economic segregation based upon the cross-sectional

43 The F-test for joint significance for suburbanization indicators is presented in Appendix C.
 118

estimations; rather, more accurate interpretations about this suburbanization indicator are

discussed based on the fixed-effects regression analyses in the next Section 8.2.

Table 8-1. Neighborhood Sorting Index: Pooled Cross-sectional Weighted Least Squares
regression Results, U.S. Metropolitan Areas, 1990 and 2000
Variables Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4 Model5 Model6
Constant 0.454*** 0.388*** 0.206** –0.024 –0.516*** –0.697***
BLK 0.025** –0.001 –0.004 –0.003 –0.007 –0.010
HSP 0.047*** 0.009 0.008 0.009 0.005 0.002
YR –0.077*** –0.100*** –0.097*** –0.115*** –0.143*** –0.130***
BLK_YR 0.006 0.008 0.009 0.010 0.010 0.011
HSP_YR –0.024*** –0.018* –0.016* –0.015 –0.016* –0.016*
DENGRAD –0.101** –0.098** –0.054 –0.040 0.075**
DEN_SCL 0.002* 0.004*** 0.003** 0.001 –0.0004
SQDEN_SCL –0.003*** –0.004*** –0.002*** –0.001* –0.00001
GOVT_SCL –0.001*** –0.001** –0.001** –0.001* –0.0004
HSVVARRAT –0.043*** –0.018 –0.011 –0.030** –0.027**
AVTM_CC 0.008*** 0.006*** 0.002 0.001 –0.003*
NEWENG 0.022 0.009 0.005 –0.003
MIDATL 0.035* 0.044*** 0.043*** 0.025**
ESTNCT 0.033** 0.050*** 0.051*** 0.043***
WSTNCT 0.067*** 0.063*** 0.063*** 0.045***
STHATL 0.017 0.026** 0.027*** 0.014
ESTSCT 0.025 0.049*** 0.027* 0.025*
WSTSCT 0.036*** 0.054*** 0.037*** 0.032***
MOUNTN 0.053*** 0.063*** 0.065*** 0.059***
AGEPOPRAT –0.0004 0.003* 0.002 0.001
AGEHSRAT –0.0002 –0.0004 –0.0003 –0.0004
HHSSIZ –0.002 0.001 –0.00002 –0.0007
INMGRRAT –0.001* –0.003*** –0.003*** –0.001**
INTRNRAT 0.005*** 0.006*** 0.005*** 0.002*
MHHSINC_SCL 0.004 0.009*** 0.008***
SQMHI_SCL –0.001 –0.004** –0.003**
MANUFCTRAT –0.001** –0.0003 –0.001
MNGPRFRAT 0.002* 0.001 –0.0003
POVRAT 0.0001 0.0002
GINI_I 1.037*** 0.989***
POPSCAL_N 0.031***
R2 0.1830 0.5299 0.6075 0.6630 0.6883 0.7026
N 1089 1089 1089 1089 1089 1089
Note: * p < 0.10 ** p < 0.05 *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed tests)
 119

Table 8-2. Neighborhood Sorting Index: Pooled Cross-sectional Weighted Least Squares
Regression Results, U.S. Metropolitan Areas, 2000 only
Variables Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4 Model5 Model6
Constant 0.377*** 0.347*** 0.063 –0.170 –0.531*** –0.672***
BLK 0.031*** 0.009 0.010 0.011 0.010 0.011
HSP 0.023** –0.005 –0.006 –0.005 –0.006 –0.007
DENGRAD –0.094** –0.122*** –0.067* –0.061* 0.042
DEN_SCL 0.002*** 0.003*** 0.002* –0.00002 –0.001
SQDEN_SCL –0.003*** –0.004*** –0.002** –0.001 0.0004
GOVT_SCL –0.002*** –0.001*** –0.001*** –0.001** –0.001*
HSVVARRAT –0.049** 0.002 –0.008 –0.029 –0.029
AVTM_CC 0.005*** 0.005*** 0.002 0.001 –0.002
RAPIDGW 0.001*** 0.0003 –0.0001 –0.00002 0.00004
NEWENG 0.012 0.011 0.008 0.005
MIDATL 0.024 0.044*** 0.043*** 0.026*
ESTNCT 0.019 0.042*** 0.044*** 0.037***
WSTNCT 0.062*** 0.061*** 0.064*** 0.046***
STHATL 0.007 0.026** 0.026** 0.013
ESTSCT 0.009 0.040** 0.021 0.018
WSTSCT 0.022* 0.044*** 0.031** 0.025**
MOUNTN 0.038** 0.050*** 0.053*** 0.045***
AGEPOPRAT –0.0001 0.004** 0.002 0.001
AGEHSRAT 0.0005 0.0001 0.00001 –0.0001
HHSSIZ –0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001
INMGRRAT 0.0003 –0.002** –0.002** –0.0002
INTRNRAT 0.005*** 0.006*** 0.005*** 0.002
MHHSINC_SCL 0.003 0.006*** 0.006***
SQMHI_SCL –0.001 –0.003 –0.002
MANUFCTRAT –0.001* –0.0004 –0.001
MNGPRFRAT 0.003** 0.002* 0.0004
POVRAT –0.0001 –0.0001
GINI_I 0.850*** 0.814***
POPSCAL_N 0.029***
R2 0.0224 0.4412 0.5279 0.6054 0.6315 0.6464
N 566 566 566 566 566 566
Note: * p < 0.10 ** p < 0.05 *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed tests)
 120

8.2 Fixed-effects regression analyses

In this Section, a set of first-difference, fixed-effects regressions is employed to provide

a further set of tests on the hypotheses listed in Chapter 4. First, I calculate the metropolitan-

level changes in NSI for non-Hispanic Whites and other racial/ethnic groups, Blacks, and

Hispanics in the 1990s. The three resulting sets of NSI44 are pooled and regressed against a set

of dummy variables for race. Then variables measuring the metropolitan-level changes in

indicators of suburban development, metropolitan context, structural economic characteristics,

and social distance and inequality are added sequentially. Furthermore, many idiosyncratic

features of metropolitan areas that may influence economic segregation are unchanging over

the period in question (such as geophysical configuration, room for expansion, accumulated

housing stock, and historical ownership patterns) or not quantifiable (such as institutional

structure, information networks, and cultural aspects). The fixed-effects estimation structure

helps to minimize the potential left out variable bias associated with these variables because it

can implicitly control for them.

To examine the stability of the estimates, both of the alternative instrument variables

measuring the exclusivity of local zoning regimes are explored: the changes in number of local

governments per 100,000 households is included in regressions shown in Table 8-3, and the

estimation results using the changes in total number of local governments is presented in Table

I-1 in Appendix I. In addition, the regressions in Table 8-3 and Table I-1 in Appendix I are re-

estimated by using the relative population growth rate instead of absolute change in total

44 The three resulting sets of NSI are: non-Hispanic Whites and other racial/ethnic groups,
1990-2000; Blacks, 1990-2000; Hispanics, 1990-2000.
 121

population scale as the measure of the change in metropolitan area size, and the results are

presented in Table I-2 and Table I-3 in Appendix I.

To deal with the heteroskedasticity associated with size of the metropolitan area,

Weighted Least Squares (WLS) estimations are employed and regressions are weighted by the

square root of the average number of 1990 and 2000 total households in metropolitan areas.

Additionally, because of the pooling method, some observations from the same metropolitan

area may not be independent to each other; the standard errors are adjusted to allow for

covariance of these observations.

8.2.1 Variable descriptions

The following variables are used in the first-difference, fixed-effects estimates

highlighted in this Section.

Dependent variable:

NSImr = Change in NSI in the 1990s: NSImr 2000 – NSImr 1990,

where m indexes metropolitan areas and r indexes
racial/ethnic groups (non-Hispanic White and others, Black,
or Hispanic).

Dummy variables for race45:

BLK = 1 if Black; 0 otherwise.

HSP = 1 if Hispanics; 0 otherwise.

Suburbanization indicators:

DGCHG = Change in the urban density gradient: urban density

gradient 2000 – urban density gradient 1990.

45 Only two race dummy variables are included in the first-difference, fixed-effects regression
analyses; the non-Hispanic White and other racial/ethnic groups is omitted as the base case.
 122

ESTCCDENCHG46 = Change in the estimated central city density (measured in

log form) between 2000 and 1990.

SQCCDENCHG = Change in the square of estimated central city density

between 2000 and 1990.

GOVTCHG_SCL47 = Change in the number of local governments per 100,000

households, which is an alternative proxy for the exclusivity
of local zoning: number of local governments per 100,000
households 2000 – number of local governments per 100,000
households 1990.

GOVTCHG = Change in the total number of local governments, which is

a proxy for the exclusivity of local zoning: total number of
local governments 2000 – total number of local governments
1990.

HSVVARRATCHG = The homogeneity of new development 2000 – the

homogeneity of new development 1990.

AVTMCHG_CC = Change in inaccessibility of jobs: central city residents’

average daily commuting time 2000 – central city residents’
average daily commuting time 1990.

Metropolitan context:

AGEPOPCHG = Aged population ratio 2000 – aged population ratio 1990.

HHSSIZCHG = Larger household ratio 2000 – larger household ratio 1990.

POPSCLCHG_N = Absolute changes in population size in the 1990s: Ln(total

population 2000) – Ln(total population 1990).

POPGWRAT48 = Relative change in population size in the 1990s: (total

population 2000 – total population 1990) / (total population
1990).

46 The reason of using the estimated central city density and its square term to substitute the
gross population density of the entire metropolitan area in first-difference, fixed-effects
estimations are discussed in Section 7.2 in previous Chapter 7.
47 GOVTCHG_SCL is used in regressions shown in Table 8-3 and Table I-2 in Appendix I;
GOVTCHG is used in estimations shown in Table I-1 and Table I-3 in Appendix I.
48 POPSCLCHG_N is used in regressions shown in Table 8-3 and Table I-1 in Appendix I;
POPGWRAT is used in estimations shown in Table I-2 and Table I-3 in Appendix I.
 123

INMGRCHG = Recent in-migration rate 2000 – recent in-migration rate

1990.

INTRNCHG = Internal turnover rate 2000 – internal turnover rate 1990.

Structural economic characteristics:

PCCHGMINC_T = Percent change in mean household income49 over the

1990s: (mean household income 2000 – mean household
income 1990) / (mean household income 1990)

MANUFCTCHG = Manufacturing employment ratio 2000 – Manufacturing

employment ratio 1990.

MNGPRFCHG = Management and professional related occupation ratio 2000

– Management and professional related occupation ratio 1990

Social distance and inequality:

POVRATCHG = Changes in poverty rate within racial/ethnic groups in the

1990s: groups’ poverty rate 2000 – groups’ poverty rate 1990.

GINI_ICHG = Gini coefficient 2000 – gini coefficient 1990.

All the variables listed above are calculated at metropolitan areas level. The expected

signs of the coefficients for these independent variables are shown in Table 5-7 in preceding

Chapter 5; and the basic descriptive statistics of them are demonstrated in Appendix J.

8.2.2 Estimation equations

The following five equations correspond to the five models shown in Table 8-3 in later

part of this Section. In Equation 1, the pooled changes in NSI are regressed against a set of

dummy variables for racial and ethnic groups only. Then the model is re-estimated by adding

the changes in suburbanization indicators (see Equation 2). After that, variables controlling for

49 Mean household income in both 2000 and 1990 are measured in 2000 US Dollars.
 124

the changes in metropolitan context, structural economic characteristics, and social distance

and inequality are added sequentially into the first-difference, fixed-effects estimations shown

in Equation 3, 4, and 5.

Equation 1

∆ NSI mr
=β + 0 1
(BLK) + 2
(HSP) + u i

Equation 2

∆NSI = β + β ( BLK ) + β ( HSP) +

mr 0 1 2 3
(DGCHG)+ 4
(ESTCCDENCHG)
+ 5
(SQCCDENCHG) + 6
(GOVTCHG_SCL) + 7
(HSVVARRATCHG)
+ 8
(AVTMCHG_CC) + u i

Equation 3

∆NSI = β + β ( BLK ) + β ( HSP ) + β ( DGCHG ) + β ( ESTCCDENCH G )

mr 0 1 2 3 4

+ β ( SQCCDENCHG ) + β (GOVTCHG _ SCL ) + β ( HSVVARRATC HG )

5 6 7

+ β ( AVTMCHG _ CC ) +
8 9
(AGEPOPCHG ) + 10
(HHSSIZCHG )
+ 11
(POPSCLCHG _N) + 12
(INMGRCHG) + 13
(INTRNCHG) + u i

Equation 4

∆NSI mr
= β + β ( BLK ) + β ( HSP ) + β ( DGCHG ) + β ( ESTCCDENCH G )
0 1 2 3 4

+ β ( SQCCDENCHG ) + β (GOVTCHG _ SCL ) + β ( HSVVARRATC HG )

5 6 7

+ β ( AVTMCHG _ CC ) + β ( AGEPOPCHG ) + β ( HHSSIZCHG )

8 9 10

+ β ( POPSCLCHG _ N ) + β ( INMGRCHG ) + β ( INTRNCHG )

11 12 13

+ 14
(PCCHGMINC _T) + 15
(MANUFCTCH G) + 16
(MNGPRFCHG ) + u i

Equation 5

∆NSI = β + β ( BLK ) + β ( HSP) + β ( DGCHG) + β ( ESTCCDENCHG )

mr 0 1 2 3 4

+ β ( SQCCDENCHG) + β (GOVTCHG _ SCL) + β ( HSVVARRATCHG )

5 6 7

+ β ( AVTMCHG _ CC ) + β ( AGEPOPCHG) + β ( HHSSIZCHG)

8 9 10

+ β ( POPSCLCHG _ N ) + β ( INMGRCHG) + β ( INTRNCHG )

11 12 13

+ β ( PCCHGMINC _ T ) + β ( MANUFCTCHG ) + β ( MNGPRFCHG)

14 15 16

+ 17
(POVRATCHG) + 18
(GINI_ICHG) + u i
 125

Note that the relatively rapid growth of the periphery indicator is not included in the

fixed-effects models. In a sense it is a change measure, since it compares rates of growth, and it

seems plausible that it should be included. However, the logic of fixed-effects model requires

that all variables in the model should be entered as changes between one period and the next.

Thus, I would have to compute the difference in the relative rates of growth between central

cities and suburbs in the 1980s and the 1990s. This would require computing the measure for

population changes in the 1980s. As noted previously, such a calculation could be difficult and

error prone given significant boundary changes over the period.

8.2.3 Results discussion

Table 8-3 presents the results for the five first-difference, fixed effects Weighted Least

Squares regression models. Model 1 includes only the dummy variables for race and ethnic

groups. The constant in this regression represents the component of the change in economic

segregation common to all these four racial/ethnic groups in the 1990s – a decrease about

0.075. There was no significant difference between Blacks and Whites and others in terms of

magnitudes of the decreases. However, economic segregation for Hispanics declined by 0.032

more than the common decrease. These findings largely parallel those in the lower panel of

Table 6-2 in preceding Chapter 6.

Model 2 adds the changes in indicators characterizing suburbanization development

patterns. All of the coefficients of these indicators demonstrate expected directions and most of

them are statistically significant. The changes in the urban density gradient are negatively

associated with the changes in economic segregation; and the coefficient is significant. As the

urban density gradient lessens, a metropolitan area is considered to be more suburbanized, and

smaller decrease (or larger increase) in economic segregation is observed over the last decade.
 126

As expected, density affects the changes in economic segregation in a non-linear fashion: the

coefficient for the changes in estimated central city density is positive whereas the coefficient

for its square term appears negative; both of these coefficients are highly significant.

The change in the number of local governments per 100,000 households is used as the

proxy of change in the exclusivity of local zoning regimes in Model 2. In contrast to the cross-

sectional models, the coefficient for this variable is positive as anticipated and significant.

Holding the other variables constant, one more local government per 100,000 households in a

metropolitan area leads to an increase in economic segregation about 0.001. Furthermore, the

significant negative coefficient for the changes in the homogeneity of new development

indicates that economic segregation will increase more or decrease less if the most recently

developed neighborhoods in suburbs are more homogeneous in terms of their housing values.

Finally, the coefficient for the change in the inaccessibility of jobs is positive as expected.

Economic segregation within metropolitan areas increase by 0.003 as the average daily

commuting time of central city residents becomes one minute longer, holding others constant.

However, this coefficient is not statistically significant. Interestingly, the introduction of the

changes in suburbanization indicators made the constant term drop from -0.075 to -0.085,

indicating the decrease in economic segregation would have been larger if the suburbanization

indicators had been constant over the 1990s.

Model 3 includes control variables accounting for changes in metropolitan context. As

expected, cities with larger increases in the proportions of aged population over the decade had

larger decreases in the NSI. Also, metropolitan areas with further increases in the proportions

of large-size households over the 1990s had larger decreases in economic segregation. Both of

the coefficients for these variables are significant. The difference between log total population
 127

in 2000 and 1990 measured the absolute change in metropolitan area size. This variable had a

significant positive coefficient, indicating metropolitan areas with larger population expansions

over the decade had smaller decreases in the NSI. As anticipated, cities with higher proportions

of residents moving into the area had larger decreases in economic segregation over the 1990s.

The change in proportion of residents moving within the metropolitan area, however, was not

statistically significant in any of the models.

Model 4 introduces several proxies for changes in structural economic characteristics.

The effect of the percent change in mean household income over the decade does not have a

significant effect on economic segregation. As expected, declines in the share of jobs in

manufacturing sector50, which were the norm, are associated with increases in income

segregation, even after controlling for the percent change in mean income over the decade. The

effect of increases in the share of jobs in professional and management related occupations51,

however, was not statistically significant in any of the models.

Finally, Model 5 adds two more variables controlling for the changes in social distance

and inequality. Changes in the group’s poverty rate have the expected positive coefficient that

is statistically significant. Increased poverty within the racial and ethnic group thus produced

smaller decreases (or larger increases) in economic segregation, supporting the hypothesis of

middle-class flight (Wilson 1987). The coefficient for gini coefficient is negative and

statistically significant. This finding is contrary to the findings in the cross-sectional

estimations and my expectation that increased overall income inequality leads to increases in

50 Table 5-3 in Chapter 5 shows the national mean of manufacturing employment ratio
declined from 16.40 percent in 1990 to 13.18 percent in 2000.
51 Table 5-3 in Chapter 5 presents the national mean of management and professional related
occupation ratio increased from 30.94 percent in 1990 to 34.86 percent in 2000.
 128

economic segregation within racial/ethnic groups. One possible explanation is that the

unexpected sign on this coefficient reflects a short-run disequilibrium condition. The annual

income probably changes faster than do residential patterns. If the overall variance in the

distribution of household income changes faster than persons can change neighborhoods to

reflect their new economic status, the between-neighborhood proportion of that variance may

temporarily dip. Additionally, in this full model, the coefficients for all suburbanization

indicators still remain the expected directions. However, only the coefficients for the estimated

central city density and its square term are slightly significant, and the coefficient for changes

in the exclusivity of local zoning regimes is highly significant. As in the cross-sectional

regressions, an F-test52 suggested that although most of the changes in suburbanization

indicators did not have significant effect individually, as a group, they still had significant joint

impact on the changes in economic segregation.

In addition, the five regression models shown in Table 8-3 are re-estimated by using the

changes in total number of local governments instead of the changes in number of local

governments per 100,000 households as the proxy of the change in the exclusivity of local

zoning regimes. The regression results are presented in Table I-1 in Appendix I. Unlike in the

cross-sectional estimates, switching between the alternative instrument variables of zoning

regime yields largely consistent results from the fixed-effects regressions. As shown in Table I-

1, the coefficient for the changes in total number of local governments also appears the

expected positive sign, but it is only statistically significant in Model 2. Increases in local

exclusionary zoning regimes helped produce economic segregation, regardless which proxy is

52 The F-test for joint significance for changes in suburbanization indicators is presented in
Appendix H.
 129

used. The directions of coefficients for all other independent variables and their significance in

Table I-1 in Appendix I are almost identical to the regression results shown in Table 8-3.

To further examine the stability of the first-difference, fixed-effects estimates, I

replicated the two sets of regressions models shown in Table 8-3 and Table I-1 in Appendix I

by using the percent change in total population instead of the difference between 2000 and

1990 log population. As alternative measures for the change in metropolitan area size, the

percent change in total population represents the relative population growth rate over the

decade, while the difference between log populations emphasizes the absolute change in total

population scale. The results of these re-estimations are presented in Table I-2 and Table I-3 in

Appendix I. Compared with the coefficients for the absolute changes in log population in Table

8-3, the coefficients for the relative population growth rate shown in Table I-2 share the same

directions (positive) and remain significant in all the models. Furthermore, the coefficients for

all other independent variables in regression models in Table 8-3 and Table I-2 have identical

signs, very similar significance levels, and even almost the same magnitudes for most of them.

The same statements can be drawn by comparing the estimated results in Table I-1 and Table I-

3 in Appendix I. Therefore, switching between the alternative measures of the change in

metropolitan size produces consistent and stable estimation results. Overall, the four sets of

regressions shown in Table 8-3 and tables in Appendix I indicate that the fixed-effects

estimations yield fundamentally consistent results that are considerably robust.

 130

Table 8-3. Changes in the Neighborhood Sorting Index: Pooled First-difference

Fixed-effects Weighted Least Squares Regression Results, U.S. Metropolitan
Areas, 1990 – 2000
Variables Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4 Model5
Constant –0.075*** –0.085*** –0.099*** –0.105*** –0.090***
BLK 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.021**
HSP –0.032*** –0.035*** –0.035*** –0.034*** –0.024**
DGCHG –0.446** –0.257 –0.203 –0.224
ESTCCDENCHG 0.527*** 0.320** 0.333** 0.306*
SQCCDENCHG –0.028*** –0.017* –0.018** –0.016*
GOVTCHG_SCL 0.001** 0.001** 0.001** 0.001***
HSVVARRATCHG –0.026** –0.017 –0.013 –0.009
AVTMCHG_CC 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002
AGEPOPCHG –0.007** –0.007*** –0.008***
HHSSIZCHG –0.009*** –0.009*** –0.009***
POPSCLCHG_N 0.082** 0.083** 0.079**
INMGRCHG –0.003*** –0.003** –0.003***
INTRNCHG –0.001 –0.002 –0.002
PCCHGMINC_T 0.0004 0.0006
MANUFCTCHG –0.003 –0.003**
MNGPRFCHG –0.001 –0.0003
POVRATCHG 0.004*
GINI_ICHG –0.721***
R2 0.0370 0.1044 0.1409 0.1463 0.1650
N 523 523 523 523 523
Note: * p < 0.10 ** p < 0.05 *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed tests)
 CHAPTER 9

CONCLUSION

Rapid suburbanization is changing the face of urban America. Suburban development is

not only transforming the geospatial landscape of US metropolitan areas, but also triggering

variety of changes in the social, economic, and political arenas. Suburbanization has been

suspected to contribute to the spatial separation of households along income lines, yet whether

or not the current suburban development patterns are significant contributors to the changes in

economic segregation has been an open empirical question.

To provide some answers to this question, this nationwide study has portrayed the trend

of changes in economic segregation and the patterns of suburbanization process during the last

decade, and modeled the relationship between these two using U.S. Census and PUMS data.

The principle empirical findings are as follows:

Economic segregation, as measured by the Neighborhood Sorting Index, decreased

significantly for all racial and ethnic groups during the last decade, reversing the earlier

increasing trend from 1970 to 1990. This finding is largely consistent with the dramatic decline

of concentrated poverty during the same period documented by numerous studies (Jargowsky

2003; Kingsley and Pettit 2003). As to the potential contributors to this ubiquitous trend of

diminishing economic segregation, the strong economic boom in the 1990s may be the primary

one. The significant public policy changes in US over the last decade, such as the expansion of

131
 132

the EITC53 program, the replacement of the AFDC54 with the new TANF55 program, and a new

emphasis on decentralization in housing policy, may also help reduce economic segregation

and the concentration of poverty. In the face of these strong factors reducing economic

segregation, it is possible that suburbanization may have been a countervailing influence. In

effect, the question is whether the declining in economic segregation may have been even

greater without the impact of continued suburbanization.

Suburbanization, often described pejoratively as “sprawl”, is not treated as a monolith

or measured by a composite index in this research. Instead, it is characterized by six specific

indicators that are identified based on the relevant literature. These suburbanization indicators

are the urban density gradient, the population density, the relatively rapid growth of the

periphery, the homogeneity of new growth, the exclusivity of local zoning, and the

inaccessibility of jobs. Together, they portrayed a picture of suburban development: both the

urban density gradients and the estimated central city densities for most metropolitan areas

declined; the length of average daily commuting time of the central city residents increased

slightly; and suburbs in most of metropolitan areas grew faster relative to their inner cities. In

addition, these suburbanization indicators have diverse regional variations, and all of them

reveal strong correlations with the size of metropolitan areas.

Empirical results from series of cross-sectional regressions and fixed-effects estimations

suggest that contemporary suburbanization patterns increase economic segregation. In every set

of cross-sectional or fixed-effects models, the coefficients for the suburbanization indicators

have significant effects on economic segregation initially; however, as more control variables

53 EITC refers to the Earned Income Tax Credit program.

54 AFDC refers to the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program.
 133

are included, these coefficients gradually lost their significance. Eventually, most of the

suburbanization indicators had no significant effects individually in the full models, but as a

group, they still had significant joint impact on economic segregation. Overall, even though

these results are not definite proof, they are still strongly suggestive.

In addition, the estimates from both sets of cross-sectional models were plagued by the

significant correlations between the suburbanization indicators and the sizes of metropolitan

areas that were measured by the log of total metropolitan population. Also, due to the

limitations associated with the cross-sectional estimation structure, alternating between the two

proxies of the exclusivity of local zoning regimes yielded inconsistent results on this

suburbanization indicator. On the contrary, the first-difference fixed-effect estimations

provided more robust results. The fixed-effects estimation structure implicitly controls for the

metropolitan area size and the features related to it and nets out the effects of suburbanization

indicators more clearly. Unlike the cross-sectional regressions, the fixed-effects models yield

highly stable estimates that are consistent with expectations when switching between the two

alternative proxies of the exclusivity of local zoning regimes or between the two alternative

measurements of the change in metropolitan size.

Given the strong correlations between metropolitan-level variables and the relatively

small sample sizes, strong conclusions are probably not justified. The results are suggestive,

however, of links between certain aspects of suburbanization and economic segregation,

leading to several policy recommendations.

First of all, the difficulty of pinning down the influences of contemporary

suburbanization patterns on economic segregation indicates more research on this topic is

55 TANF refers to the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program.

 134

needed in the future. The empirical results basically suggested that as a group, the

contemporary suburbanization patterns made a difference on the changes in economic

segregation; however, the individual effect of each indicator was unclear in the fully controlled

models. Thus, further careful investigation will be necessary before any specific policy

formulation and enforcement. Additionally, the more significant empirical results for other

control variables indicates that more aspects of metropolitan development other than

suburbanization should be take into account when considering the changes in economic

segregation.

With these caveats in mind, a few specific policy implications can be made based upon

the empirical results in this study. For instance, the well-known images of urban sprawl,

suburban affluence, and central-city decline have led many planners and policy makers to jump

to the conclusion that low-density development patterns promote income segregation.

Therefore, many organizations that seek to curb sprawl through smart growth (or

neotraditional-style developments) contend that the compact urban development patterns

favored by their policies will have better socioeconomic integration (Talen 2002). This

perception is partially driven by significant empirical evidence that Whites move away from

central-city neighborhoods where Blacks and/or other racial minorities are concentrated and

relocate to newly developed, low-density areas at the urban fringe (Carruthers 2003).

However, the empirical results from this study confirm that density actually has a

nonlinear effect on economic segregation. In both sets of cross-sectional regressions, the

coefficients for the gross population density and its square term are positive and negative

respectively. In the fixed-effects models, the coefficients for the estimated central city density

and its square term not only obtain the expected signs, but also remain significant even in the
 135

full models. Higher density does not necessarily lead to lower economic segregation; actually,

it increases economic segregation in a decreasing rate. Although this finding might seem

counterintuitive, it indeed suggests the connection between density and income segregation is

more complex than is typically thought. Thus, the increasingly popular smart growth programs

aimed at shaping a denser, more compact urban form may not be the optimal solution to greater

socioeconomic equity, though they may be helpful to promote public transit and address

environmental concerns.

Furthermore, the homogeneity of new development seems to be the most robust

indicator in the cross-sectional regressions. The coefficient for this indicator always obtains the

anticipated sign (negative) in every cross-sectional model, even when the size of metropolitan

areas is controlled. In the first set of cross-sectional regressions where the 1990 and 2000

observations are pooled together, the coefficients for this indicator remain individually

significant in the full models. This finding indicates that the aspect of current suburban

development that entire sectors of the metropolitan are devoted exclusively to similar types of

housing helps to increase economic segregation. As to the fixed-effects models, besides the

estimated central city density, the exclusivity of local zoning is the only indicator that has

significant effect on economic segregation individually in the full models. This finding

supports the argument that the exclusivity of local zoning policies helps to isolate the higher-

income households from the lower-income families.

Based upon these results, compared to smart growth programs, inclusionary zoning

ordinances seem to be a better choice to address economic segregation concerns than just

focusing on density. Inclusionary zoning programs aim to provide affordable housing through

the leveraging of both public and private resources and stimulate social and economic
 136

integration by building of mixed-income, diverse, integrated communities (Bagley and Meltzer

2005; The PolicyLink 2004). These programs require developers to make a certain percentage

of housing units in new residential development available to low- and moderate-income

households. In return, developers receive non-monetary compensation, such as density bonuses,

zoning variances, and/or expedited permits, that reduce construction costs. By linking the

production of affordable housing with private market development, inclusionary zoning

programs expand the supply for affordable housing to a diverse labor force by dispersing

affordable units throughout a city or county, and help to connect residents in high poverty

neighborhoods to opportunities (The PolicyLink 2004).

Inclusionary zoning, sometimes also called “inclusionary housing”, can take various

forms. Some inclusionary zoning programs are mandatory, whereas others are voluntary or

incentive-driven. The mandatory ordinances usually require developers to build affordable

housing units in exchange for development rights, while the incentive-based programs allow

developers to voluntarily “opt-in”. In addition, some local jurisdictions require developers to

construct affordable dwelling units within the development, whereas others allow affordable

housing units to be built in another location. While some programs require developers to

actually build the units, some other communities allow developers to contribute to an

affordable housing fund only (The PolicyLink 2003).

Recently, inclusionary zoning programs have become a common tool for local

governments to promote neighborhoods integration in numerous states such as California,

Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Colorado. Many metropolitan areas, such as Washington DC,

Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Burlington, Vermont, have also adopted these policies (The

PolicyLink 2004). Especially, the state of California is home to the most inclusionary zoning
 137

programs: there are 107 jurisdictions employ these policies to produce affordable housing. Till

2003, more than 34,000 units of affordable housing had been constructed in California (The

PolicyLink 2003). Moreover, a recent case study in New York city indicates that a carefully

designed inclusionary zoning ordinance could work to promote affordable housing

development without dampening market-rate development in the big city (Bagley and Meltzer

2005).

The results of this study also indicate that as much as economic segregation is the

primary concern, the thing that really matters is not so much about the fact that metropolitan

areas are spreading out; rather, it is how the cities are spreading out. The empirical work in this

research illustrates that the urban density gradients declined over the last decade, indicating

continuous deconcentration of urban core during suburbanization process. However, in both

cross-sectional and fixed-effects analyses, this indicator has no significant effects on economic

segregation in fully controlled models. On the contrary, the homogeneity of new development

and the exclusivity of local zoning are the two most robust indicators that have significant

contributions to economic segregation in the cross-sectional models and the fixed-effects

models respectively. These findings suggest that the fast development at urban fringe with

spread-out land use patterns does not necessarily produce income segregation. But during the

suburbanization process, a development pattern consisting of local jurisdictions using zoning

regulations to exclude low- or moderate-income households does contribute towards higher

economic segregation.

Economic segregation is a significant social problem that deserves attention from policy

makers in all levels of governments. The spatial isolation of the lower-income households not

only affects poverty and inequality in the short-run, but also threatens equality of opportunity
 138

and social mobility in the long run (Jargowsky 2002). The poor are less likely to find out about

remote suburban job opportunities. Even if they do, it is increasingly difficult for them to

obtain one because of inefficient public transportation systems. Isolated and disadvantageous

neighborhoods suffer for rampant crime and other problem behaviors, lack necessary public

services, and diminish the life chances of their residents. In addition, the negative impacts of

impoverished neighborhoods are particularly strong on youth (Anderson 1991). Economic

segregation also may increase inequality of education, hinder the development of human and

cultural capital in the next generation, and contribute to the inter-generational transmission of

poverty (Farkas 1996; Levy 1995). Furthermore, spatial separation of income groups weakens

the collective ability to respond to the challenges of poverty and inequality (Jargowsky 2002).

Certainly, this research has limitations that should be improved in the future. For

instance, both the total number of local governments and the number of local governments per

100,000 households are relatively weak proxies of the exclusivity of local zoning regimes; yet

they are still employed due to lack of adequate nation-wide zoning data. Better proxy

measurements for this indicator should be explored in future research. Also, comparative study

of multiple states could be considered. For example, Texas and California are both large states;

however, they have very different local zoning history: while California adopts lots of zoning

regulations, Texas has really few. Comparison between these two states would be helpful to

investigate the effect of local zoning regimes on economic segregation.

 APPENDIX A

JOINT SIGNIFICANCE TEST FOR

SUBURBANIZATION INDICATORS

The following F-test for joint significance of suburbanization indicators is conducted

after the cross-sectional regression demonstrated as Model 5 in Table 8-1.

H0: DENGRAD = DEN_SCL = SQDEN_SCL = GOVT_SCL = HSVVARRAT =

AVTM_CC = 0
(All the suburbanization indicators simultaneously equal to zero; as a group, the
suburbanization indicators have no significant influences on economic segregation
levels.)

Ha: otherwise.

The F statistics: ( RSS − RSS ) m

F= R U
= 4.03
RSS ( n − k )
U

The P-value: Probability > F = 0.0006

Since the P-value is obviously smaller than α = 0.01 , the null hypothesis is rejected.

Thus, as a group, the suburbanization indicators have significant effects on economic

segregation at 0.01 confidence level.

139
 APPENDIX B

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SUBURBANIZATION INDICATORS

AND LOG OF TOTAL POPULATION

Table B-1. Correlations between suburbanization indicators and

log of total population in cross-sectional pooled regressions
Correlation with
Suburbanization indicators log(population)
Urban density gradient –0.5584*
Scaled gross population density 0.3315*
Square of scaled gross population density 0.1189*
Total number of local governments 0.7378*
Number of local governments
Per 100,000 households –0.4766*
Homogeneity of new development –0.3367*
Inaccessibility of jobs 0.7498*
Relatively rapid growth of the periphery 0.1481*
* Significant at 0.05 confidence level.

140
 APPENDIX C

JOINT SIGNIFICANCE TEST FOR

SUBURBANIZATION INDICATORS

The following F-test for joint significance of suburbanization indicators is conducted

after the cross-sectional regression demonstrated as Model 5 in Table 8-2.

H0: DENGRAD = DEN_SCL = SQDEN_SCL = GOVT_SCL = HSVVARRAT =

AVTM_CC = RAPIDGW = 0
(All the suburbanization indicators simultaneously equal to zero; as a group, the
suburbanization indicators have no significant influences on economic segregation
levels.)

Ha: otherwise.

The F statistics: ( RSS − RSS ) m

F= R U
= 3.02
RSS ( n − k )
U

The P-value: Probability > F = 0.0043

Since the P-value is obviously smaller than α = 0.01, the null hypothesis is rejected.

Thus, as a group, the suburbanization indicators have significant effects on economic

segregation at 0.05 confidence level.

141
 APPENDIX D

THE SECOND SET OF OVERALL POOLED WLS

CROSS-SECTIONAL REGRESSIONS

Table D-1. Neighborhood Sorting Index: Pooled Cross-sectional Weighted Least Squares
regression Results, U.S. Metropolitan Areas, 1990 and 2000
Variables Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4 Model5 Model6
Constant 0.454*** 0.409*** 0.205** –0.068 –0.548*** –0.809***
BLK 0.025** 0.001 –0.003 –0.002 –0.005 –0.009
HSP 0.047*** 0.017 0.009 0.010 0.007 0.002
YR –0.077*** –0.094*** –0.096*** –0.116*** –0.144*** –0.133***
BLK_YR 0.006 0.009 0.009 0.010 0.010 0.011
HSP_YR –0.024*** –0.021** –0.017* –0.016 –0.017* –0.017*
DENGRAD –0.063 –0.062 –0.035 –0.022 0.088***
DEN_SCL 0.003*** 0.005*** 0.003** 0.001 –0.001
SQDEN_SCL –0.003*** –0.005*** –0.003*** –0.001* 0.0002
GOVT 0.0002* 0.0001 0.00001 0.00003 –0.0001
HSVVARRAT –0.068*** –0.029* –0.017 –0.035*** –0.024*
AVTM_CC 0.006*** 0.006*** 0.003 0.001 –0.002
NEWENG 0.035* 0.019 0.011 –0.0002
MIDATL 0.031 0.044*** 0.041*** 0.028**
ESTNCT 0.027 0.049*** 0.048*** 0.048***
WSTNCT 0.047*** 0.054*** 0.054*** 0.050***
STHATL 0.012 0.026** 0.025** 0.016
ESTSCT 0.019 0.046*** 0.024 0.028*
WSTSCT 0.030** 0.051*** 0.034*** 0.033***
MOUNTN 0.052*** 0.063*** 0.065*** 0.059***
AGEPOPRAT –0.001 0.003** 0.002 0.001
AGEHSRAT –0.001 –0.001 –0.001 –0.0004
HHSSIZ –0.002* 0.001 –0.0002 –0.0006
INMGRRAT –0.002* –0.003*** –0.003*** –0.001**
INTRNRAT 0.005*** 0.006*** 0.005*** 0.002*
MHHSINC_SCL 0.004 0.009*** 0.008***
SQMHI_SCL –0.001 –0.004** –0.003**
MANUFCTRAT –0.001 –0.0002 –0.001
MNGPRFRAT 0.002** 0.001 –0.00004
POVRAT 0.00003 0.0002
GINI_I 1.076*** 0.976***
POPSCAL_N 0.038***
R2 0.1830 0.5267 0.6038 0.6597 0.6870 0.7040
N 1089 1089 1089 1089 1089 1089
Note: * p < 0.10 ** p < 0.05 *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed tests)

142
 APPENDIX E

THE SECOND SET OF 2000 POOLED WLS

CROSS-SECTIONAL REGRESSIONS

Table E-1. Neighborhood Sorting Index: Pooled Cross-sectional Weighted Least Squares
Regression Results, U.S. Metropolitan Areas, 2000 only
Variables Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4 Model5 Model6
Constant 0.377*** 0.364*** 0.055 –0.260** –0.605*** –0.821***
BLK 0.031*** 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.012 0.012
HSP 0.023** –0.001 –0.005 –0.004 –0.005 –0.006
DENGRAD –0.059 –0.087* –0.055 –0.050 0.061*
DEN_SCL 0.003*** 0.004*** 0.002* 0.00004 –0.001**
SQDEN_SCL –0.003*** –0.004*** –0.002** –0.0006 0.001
GOVT 0.0001 0.0001 –0.0001 –0.00004 –0.0001**
HSVVARRAT –0.078*** –0.010 –0.012 –0.033* –0.026
AVTM_CC 0.005*** 0.005*** 0.003* 0.002 –0.001
RAPIDGW 0.001*** 0.0004 –0.0001 –0.00002 0.00002
NEWENG 0.026 0.022 0.016 0.009
MIDATL 0.021 0.048*** 0.045*** 0.030**
ESTNCT 0.015 0.045*** 0.045*** 0.044***
WSTNCT 0.044** 0.059*** 0.061*** 0.053***
STHATL 0.002 0.028** 0.027** 0.016
ESTSCT 0.002 0.040** 0.020 0.022
WSTSCT 0.015 0.043*** 0.029** 0.026**
MOUNTN 0.035** 0.050*** 0.054*** 0.045***
AGEPOPRAT –0.0003 0.004** 0.003* 0.002
AGEHSRAT –0.0001 –0.0002 –0.0003 –0.0002
HHSSIZ –0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001
INMGRRAT 0.0003 –0.002*** –0.002*** –0.0002
INTRNRAT 0.005*** 0.007*** 0.006*** 0.002
MHHSINC_SCL 0.003 0.006*** 0.006***
SQMHI_SCL –0.001 –0.003 –0.002
MANUFCTRAT –0.001 –0.0001 –0.001
MNGPRFRAT 0.003*** 0.002** 0.001
POVRAT –0.0002 –0.0002
GINI_I 0.883*** 0.795***
POPSCAL_N 0.038***
R2 0.0224 0.4268 0.5174 0.5997 0.6277 0.6500
N 566 566 566 566 566 566
Note: * p < 0.10 ** p < 0.05 *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed tests)

143
 APPENDIX F

DESCRIPTIVE STATISITCS FOR INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

IN OVERALL POOLED CROSS-SECTIONAL REGRESSIONS

Table F-1. Basic descriptive statistics for independent variables in

overall pooled cross-sectional regressions
Variable Obs. Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max.
BLK 1089 0.25 0.43 0 1
HSP 1089 0.15 0.36 0 1
WHT* 1089 0.60 0.49 0 1
YR 1089 0.52 0.50 0 1
BLK_YR 1089 0.13 0.34 0 1
HSP_YR 1089 0.09 0.29 0 1
DENGRAD 1089 0.18 0.10 –0.04 0.66
DEN_SCL 1089 5.18 11.35 0.05 130.44
SQDEN_SCL 1089 1.56 12.40 0.00002 170.14
GOVT 1089 42.07 49.59 1 319
GOVT_SCL 1089 18.30 11.93 2.55 79.05
HSVVARRAT 1089 1.71 0.24 1.35 3.42
AVTM_CC 1089 19.88 4.20 11.36 39.91
NEWENG 1089 0.07 0.25 0 1
MIDATL 1089 0.09 0.28 0 1
ESTNCT 1089 0.13 0.34 0 1
WSTNCT 1089 0.06 0.24 0 1
STHATL 1089 0.21 0.40 0 1
ESTSCT 1089 0.08 0.27 0 1
WSTSCT 1089 0.15 0.36 0 1
MOUNTN 1089 0.07 0.26 0 1
PACIFC** 1089 0.14 0.35 0 1
AGEPOPRAT 1089 12.28 3.29 4.38 34.71
AGEHSRAT 1089 14.23 10.66 0.44 50.76
HHSSIZ 1089 10.80 3.53 5.04 34.08
INMGRRAT 1089 20.05 7.25 6.83 54.44
INTRNRAT 1089 35.29 4.58 21.88 49.16
POPSCAL_N 1089 13.03 1.13 10.95 16.07
MHHSINC_SCL 1089 51.93 10.26 32.40 134.98
SQNHI_SCL 1089 28.02 12.70 10.50 182.20
MANUFCTRAT 1089 14.96 6.48 2.84 44.04

144
 145

Table F-1. (Continued)

Variable Obs. Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max.
MNGPRFRAT 1089 31.26 5.10 18.92 50.18
POVRAT 1089 16.23 9.87 2.83 52.77
GINI_I 1089 0.43 0.03 0.35 0.54
TTHHS*** 1089 137443.5 232808.4 7013 2071854
*Note: Non-Hispanic White as the omitted category for race dummy variables.
**Note: Pacific division as the omitted category for regional dummy variables.
***Note: number of total households as the weights in WLS
cross-sectional models.
 APPENDIX G

DESCRIPTIVE STATISITCS FOR INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

IN 2000 POOLED CROSS-SECTIONAL REGRESSIONS

Table G-1. Basic descriptive statistics for independent variables in

2000 pooled cross-sectional regressions
Variable Obs. Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max.
BLK 566 0.25 0.43 0 1
HSP 566 0.17 0.38 0 1
WHT* 566 0.57 0.50 0 1
DENGRAD 566 0.17 0.10 –0.04 0.66
DEN_SCL 566 5.39 11.66 0.05 130.44
SQDEN_SCL 566 1.65 13.27 0.00003 170.14
GOVT 566 43.18 49.55 3 319
GOVT_SCL 566 17.78 11.81 2.60 75.20
HSVVARRAT 566 1.71 0.22 1.35 3.23
AVTM_CC 566 21.18 4.24 13.25 39.91
RAPIDGW 566 8.36 17.04 –152.49 66.22
NEWENG 566 0.07 0.25 0 1
MIDATL 566 0.09 0.28 0 1
ESTNCT 566 0.13 0.34 0 1
WSTNCT 566 0.06 0.23 0 1
STHATL 566 0.21 0.41 0 1
ESTSCT 566 0.07 0.26 0 1
WSTSCT 566 0.15 0.36 0 1
MOUNTN 566 0.07 0.26 0 1
PACIFC** 566 0.14 0.35 0 1
AGEPOPRAT 566 12.42 3.34 6.36 34.71
AGEHSRAT 566 12.93 9.92 0.44 47.28
HHSSIZ 566 10.67 3.65 5.04 31.74
INMGRRAT 566 19.24 6.54 7.55 45.78
INTRNRAT 566 35.10 4.26 22.26 47.12
POPSCAL_N 566 13.10 1.12 10.96 16.07
MHHSINC_SCL 566 54.45 10.28 35.59 134.98
SQNHI_SCL 566 30.70 13.44 12.67 182.20
MANUFCTRAT 566 13.62 6.11 2.84 42.56
MNGPRFRAT 566 32.82 5.26 21.49 50.18
POVRAT 566 15.53 8.91 3.26 43.93

146
 147

Table G-1. (Continued)

Variable Obs. Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max.
GINI_I 566 0.45 0.03 0.37 0.54
TTHHS*** 566 140700.7 235518.2 9157 2071854
*Note: Non-Hispanic White as the omitted category for race dummy variables.
**Note: Pacific division as the omitted category for regional dummy variables.
***Note: number of total households as the weights in WLS
cross-sectional models.
 APPENDIX H

JOINT SIGNIFICANCE TEST FOR

CHANGES IN SUBURBANIZATION INDICATORS

The following F-test for joint significance of changes in suburbanization indicators is

conducted after the first-difference, fixed-effects regression shown as Model 5 in Table 8-3.

H0: DGCHG = ESTCCDENCHG = SQCCDENCHG = GOVTCHG_SCL =

HSVVARRATCHG = AVTMCHG_CC = 0
(All the changes in suburbanization indicators simultaneously equal to zero; as a
group, the changes in suburbanization indicators have no significant influences on
the changes in economic segregation.)

Ha: otherwise.

( RSS R − RSSU ) m
The F statistics: F = = 2.07
RSSU (n − k )

The P-value: Probability > F = 0.0559

Since the P-value is obviously smaller than α = 0.10 , the null hypothesis is rejected.

Thus, as a group, the changes in suburbanization indicators have significant effects on the

changes in economic segregation at 0.10 confidence level.

148
 APPENDIX I

OTHER THREE SETS OF POOLED WLS

FIRST-DIFFERENCE FIXED-EFFECTS REGRESSIONS

Table I-1. Changes in the Neighborhood Sorting Index: Pooled First-difference

Fixed-effects Weighted Least Squares Regression Results, U.S. Metropolitan
Areas, 1990 – 2000
Variables Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4 Model5
Constant –0.075*** –0.087*** –0.101*** –0.105*** –0.089***
BLK 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.020**
HSP –0.032*** –0.034*** –0.034*** –0.033*** –0.024*
DGCHG –0.352** –0.235 –0.184 –0.211
ESTCCDENCHG 0.528*** 0.319** 0.326** 0.300*
SQCCDENCHG –0.029*** –0.017* –0.018** –0.016*
GOVTCHG 0.001** 0.0004 0.0003 0.0004
HSVVARRATCHG –0.025** –0.017 –0.013 –0.009
AVTMCHG_CC 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.002
AGEPOPCHG –0.006* –0.007** –0.007**
HHSSIZCHG –0.009*** –0.009*** –0.009**
POPSCLCHG_N 0.072** 0.076** 0.067*
INMGRCHG –0.003*** –0.003** –0.003***
INTRNCHG –0.001 –0.002 –0.002
PCCHGMINC_T 0.0004 0.0005
MANUFCTCHG –0.002 –0.003*
MNGPRFCHG –0.002 –0.0003
POVRATCHG 0.004*
GINI_ICHG –0.743***
R2 0.0370 0.1049 0.1376 0.1427 0.1614
N 523 523 523 523 523
Note: * p < 0.10 ** p < 0.05 *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed tests)

149
 150

Table I-2. Changes in the Neighborhood Sorting Index: Pooled First-difference

Fixed-effects Weighted Least Squares Regression Results, U.S. Metropolitan
Areas, 1990 – 2000
Variables Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4 Model5
Constant –0.075*** –0.085*** –0.097*** –0.104*** –0.088***
BLK 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.021**
HSP –0.032*** –0.035*** –0.035*** –0.034*** –0.024**
DGCHG –0.446** –0.290 –0.233 –0.254
ESTCCDENCHG 0.527*** 0.335** 0.346** 0.316**
SQCCDENCHG –0.028*** –0.017* –0.019** –0.017*
GOVTCHG_SCL 0.001** 0.001** 0.001** 0.001***
HSVVARRATCHG –0.026** –0.018 –0.014 –0.010
AVTMCHG_CC 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002
AGEPOPCHG –0.007** –0.008*** –0.008***
HHSSIZCHG –0.009*** –0.009** –0.009**
POPGWRAT 0.001** 0.001* 0.001*
INMGRCHG –0.003*** –0.003*** –0.003***
INTRNCHG –0.001 –0.002 –0.002
PCCHGMINC_T 0.001 0.001
MANUFCTCHG –0.003 –0.003**
MNGPRFCHG –0.001 –0.0003
POVRATCHG 0.004*
GINI_ICHG –0.730***
R2 0.0370 0.1044 0.1387 0.1444 0.1633
N 523 523 523 523 523
Note: * p < 0.10 ** p < 0.05 *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed tests)
 151

Table I-3. Changes in the Neighborhood Sorting Index: Pooled First-difference

Fixed-effects Weighted Least Squares Regression Results, U.S. Metropolitan
Areas, 1990 – 2000
Variables Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4 Model5
Constant –0.075*** –0.087*** –0.099*** –0.104*** –0.088***
BLK 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.020**
HSP –0.032*** –0.034*** –0.034*** –0.033*** –0.024*
DGCHG –0.352** –0.267 –0.214 –0.240
ESTCCDENCHG 0.528*** 0.336** 0.340** 0.311*
SQCCDENCHG –0.029*** –0.018* –0.018** –0.016*
GOVTCHG 0.001** 0.0004 0.0003 0.0005
HSVVARRATCHG –0.025** –0.018 –0.014 –0.010
AVTMCHG_CC 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.002
AGEPOPCHG –0.006* –0.007** –0.007**
HHSSIZCHG –0.009*** –0.009** –0.009**
POPGWRAT 0.001* 0.001* 0.001
INMGRCHG –0.003*** –0.003** –0.003***
INTRNCHG –0.001 –0.002 –0.002
PCCHGMINC_T 0.0004 0.0005
MANUFCTCHG –0.002 –0.003*
MNGPRFCHG –0.002 –0.0003
POVRATCHG 0.003*
GINI_ICHG –0.754***
R2 0.0370 0.1049 0.1359 0.1410 0.1600
N 523 523 523 523 523
Note: * p < 0.10 ** p < 0.05 *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed tests)
 APPENDIX J

DESCRIPTIVE STATISITCS FOR INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

IN FIRST-DIFFERENCE FIXED-EFFECTS REGRESSIONS

Table J-1. Basic descriptive statistics for independent variables in

first-difference fixed-effects regressions
Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
BLK 523 0.25 0.43 0 1
HSP 523 0.13 0.34 0 1
WHT* 523 0.62 0.49 0 1
DGCHG 523 –0.01 0.03 –0.13 0.19
ESTCCDENCHG 523 –0.01 0.19 –0.91 1.00
SQCCDENCHG 523 –0.07 3.12 –15.99 15.57
GOVTCHG_SCL 523 2.98 6.15 –12.86 37.70
GOVTCHG 523 –0.85 4.59 –5 38
HSVVARRATCHG 523 0.01 0.22 –1.46 1.07
AVTMCHG_CC 523 2.69 1.26 –2.31 8.43
AGEPOPCHG 523 0.19 0.90 –4.67 3.26
HHSIZCHG 523 –0.25 1.25 –3.31 3.57
INMGRCHG 523 –1.78 3.09 –16.65 4.60
INTRNCHG 523 –0.41 2.16 –6.47 7.22
POPSCLCHG_N 523 0.13 0.10 –0.08 0.61
POPGWRAT 523 14.24 12.11 –7.38 83.33
PCCHGMINC_T 523 10.50 5.52 –3.25 32.26
MANUFCTCHG 523 –2.76 1.86 –10.46 7.09
MNGPRFCHG 523 3.26 1.77 –2.20 9.51
POVRATCHG 523 –2.14 3.01 –12.51 5.04
GINI_ICHG 523 0.03 0.01 –0.04 0.08
ATTHHS** 523 142505.5 235650.2 8351.5 2035944
*Note: Non-Hispanic White as the omitted category for race dummy variables.
**Note: average number of 1990 and 2000 total households as the
weights in WLS first-difference fixed-effects models.

152
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abramson, Alan J., Mitchell S. Tobin, and Matthew R. VanderGoot. 1995. “The Changing
Geography of Metropolitan Opportunity: The Segregation of the Poor in U.S.
Metropolitan Areas, 1970-1990.” Housing Policy Debate 6(1): 45-72.

Anderson, Elijah. 1991. “Neighborhood Influences on Inner-City Teenage Pregnancy.” In The

Urban Underclass, edited by Christopher Jencks and Paul E. Peterson (375-98).
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Bagley, Nick, and Rachel Meltzer. 2005. “A Guarded Optimism: The Viability of Inclusionary
Zoning in New York City.” Presented at the Urban Affairs Association 35th Annual
Research Conference.

Bain, Read. 1969. In A Dictionary of the Social Sciences, edited by Julius Gould and William
L. Kolb. New York: The Free Press.

Bell, Wendell. 1954. “A Probability Model for the Measurement of Ecological Segregation.”
Social Forces 32: 357-64.

Berry, Brian J. L., Andrew J. Bruzewicz, Douglas B. Cargo, James B. Cummings, Donald C.
Dahmann, Peter G. Goheen, Charles P. Kaplan, Dorothy B. Koopman, Richard F.
Lamb, Lee F. Margerum, Marvin W. Mikesell, David J. Morgan, Jack P. Mrowka, John
P. Piccininni, and Judith A Soisson. 1974. Land Use, Urban Form, and Environmental
Quality. The University of Chicago, Department of Geography, Research Paper No. 155
for the Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency.

Berry, Brian J. L., and Quentin Gillard. 1977. The Changing Shape of Metropolitan America:
Commuting Patterns, Urban Fields, and Decentralization Processes, 1960-1970.
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.

Berry, Brian J. L., and Frank E. Horton. 1970. Geographical Perspectives on Urban Systems:
With Integrated Readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Berry, Brian J. L., and J. D. Kasarda. 1977. Contemporary Urban Ecology. New York:
Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.

Black, Thomas J. 1996. “The Economics of Sprawl.” Urban Land 55(3): 6-52.

153
 154

The Brooking Institute Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and the Fannie Mae
Foundation. 1998. “A Rise in Downtown Living.” Washington, DC: The Brooking
Institute Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and the Fannie Mae Foundation
(November).

Burchell, Robert W., George Lowenstein, William R. Dolphin, Catherine C. Galley, Anthony
Downs, Samuel Seskin, Katherine G. Still, and Terry Moore. 1998. The Costs of
Sprawl—Revisited. Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 39, sponsored by The
Federal Transit Administration. Transportation Research Board of National Research
Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Calhoun, Craig. 2002. In Dictionary of the Social Sciences, edited by Craig Calhoun. Oxford
University Press.

Carruthers, John I. 2003. “Growth at the Fringe: The Influence of Political Fragmentation in
United States Metropolitan Areas.” Papers in Regional Science 82: 475-99.

Cervero, Robert. 1991. “Land Use and Travel at Suburban Activity Centers.” Transportation
Quarterly 45(4): 479-91.

Cisneros, Henry G. 1993. “Interwoven Destinies: Cities and the Nation.” In Interwoven
Destinies: Cities and the Nation, edited by Henry G. Cisneros. New York: W. W.
Norton & Company.

Clark, C. 1951. “Urban Population Densities.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A
114: 490-96.

Clawson, Marion. 1962. “Urban Sprawl and Speculation in Suburban Land.” Land Economics
38(2): 94-111.

Crane, Jon. 1991. “Effects of Neighborhood on Dropping Out of School and Teenage
Childbearing.” In The Urban Underclass, edited by Christopher Jencks and Paul E.
Peterson (299-320). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Downs, Anthony. 1998. “How America’s Cities Are Growing: The Big Picture.” Brookings
Review 16(4): 8-12.

——. 1999. “Some Realities about Sprawl and Urban Decline.” Housing Policy Debate 10(4):
955-74.

Dreier, Peter. 2000. “Sprawl’s Invisible Hand.” The Nation (February 21): 6-7.

Dreier, Peter, John Mollenkopf, and Todd Swanstrom. 2001. Place Matters: Metropolitics for
the Twenty-first Century. Lawrence, KA: University Press of Kansas.
 155

Duncan, Otis Dudley, and Beverly Duncan. 1955a. “A Methodological Analysis of Segregation
Indexes.” American Sociological Review 20: 210-17.

——. 1955b. “Residential Distribution and Occupational Stratification.” American Journal of

Sociology 60: 493-503.

Edmonston, Barry. 1975. Population Distribution in American Cities. Lexington, MA: D. C.

Heath and Company.

Edmonston, Barry, Michael A. Goldberg, and John Mercer. 1985. “Urban Form in Canada and
the United States: an Examination of Urban Density Gradients.” Urban Studies 22: 209-
17.

Ellwood, David. 1999. “The Impact of the Earned Income Tax Credit and Social Policy
Reforms on Work, Marriage and Living Arrangements.” Working Paper. Harvard
University.

Erbe, Brigitte M. 1975. “Race and Socioeconomic Segregation.” American Sociological Review
40: 801-12.

Ewing, Reid. 1997. “Is Los Angeles-Style Sprawl Desirable?” Journal of the American
Planning Association 63(1): 107-26.

Farkas, George. 1996. Human Capital or Cultural Capital? Ethnicity and Poverty Groups in an
Urban School District. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Farley, Reynolds. 1977. “Residential Segregation in Urbanized Areas of the United States in
1970: An Analysis of Social Class and Racial Differences.” Demography 14: 497-517.

——. 1991. “Residential Segregation of Social and Economic Groups Among Blacks, 1970 to
1980.” In The Urban Underclass, edited by C. Jencks and P. E. Peterson. Washington,
DC: The Brookings Institution.

Farley, Reynolds, and William H. Frey. 1994. “Changes in the Segregation of Whites from
Blacks During the 1980s: Small Steps Toward a More Integrated Society.” American
Sociological Review 59: 23-45.

Fox, Radhika J., and Kalima Rose. 2003. Expanding Housing Opportunity in Washington DC:
The Case for Inclusionary Zoning. Oakland, CA: PolicyLink.

Frey, William H., and Alden Speare, Jr. 1988. Regional and Metropolitan Growth and Decline
in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Galster, George, Royce Hanson, Michael R. Ratcliffe, Harold Wolman, Stephen Coleman, and
Jason Freihage. 2001. “Wrestling Sprawl to the Ground: Defining and Measuring an
Elusive Concept.” Housing Policy Debate 12(4): 681-717.
 156

Galster, George, Ronald Mincy and Mitchell Tobin. 1997. “The Disparate Racial
Neighborhood Impacts of Metropolitan Economic Restructuring.” Urban Affairs
Review 32: 797-824.

Geddes, Robert. 1997. “Metropolis Unbound: The Sprawling American City and the Search for
Alternatives.” American Prospect 8(35): 40.

The Geographic Areas Reference Manual of U.S. Census 2000. U.S. Census Bureau.

Glaeser, Edward L. 1999. “Are Cities Dying?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 12: 139-60.

The Glossary of Basic Geographic and Repated Terms of U.S. Census 2000. U.S. Census
Bureau.

Goldsmith, William W., and Edward J. Blakely. 1992. Separate Societies: Poverty and
Inequality in U.S. Cities. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Gordon, Peter, and Harry W. Richardson. 1997. “Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning
Goal?” Journal of the American Planning Association 63(1): 89-106.

Hartman, Chester. 2002. Review Comments. In Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences and
Policy Responses, edited by Gregory D. Squires. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute
Press.

Harvey, Robert O., and William A. V. Clark. 1965. “The Nature and Economics of Sprawl.”
Land Economics 41(1): 1-9.

Heinlich, R., and W. Andersen. 2001. Development at the Urban Fringe and Beyond: Impacts
on Agriculture and Rural Land. ERS Agriculture Economics Report No. 803.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Helling, Amy. 2002. “Transportation, Land Use, and the Impacts of Sprawl on Poor Children
and Families.” In Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences and Policy Responses, edited
by Gregory D. Squires (119-40). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

Hoch, Irving. 1987. “City Size and U.S. Urban Policy.” Urban Studies 24: 570-86.

Iceland, John., Daniel H. Weiberg, and Erika Steinmetz. 2002. Racial and Ethnic Residential
Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000. U.S. Census Bureau, Census Special
Report, CENSR-3. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
 157

Ihlanfeldt, Keith R., and David L. Sjoquist. 1998. “The Spatial Mismatch Hypothesis: A
Review of Recent Studies and Their Implications for Welfare Reform.” Housing Policy
Debate 9(4): 849-92.

——. 2000. “The Geographic Mismatch between Jobs and Housing.” In The Atlanta Paradox,
edited by David L. Sjoquist (116-27). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Jackson, Kenneth T. 1985. Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Jaret, Charles. 2002. “Suburban Expansion in Atlanta: ‘The City without Limits’.” In Urban
Sprawl: Causes, Consequences and Policy Responses, edited by Gregory D. Squires
(165-206). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

Jargowsky, Paul A. 1996. “Take the Money and Run: Economic Segregation in U.S.
Metropolitan Areas.” American Sociological Review 61(December): 984-998.

——. 1997. Poverty and Place: Ghettos, Barrios, and the American City. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.

——. 2002. “Sprawl, Concentration of Poverty, and Urban Inequality.” In Urban Sprawl:
Causes, Consequences and Policy Responses, edited by Gregory D. Squires (39-71).
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

——. 2003. “Stunning Progress, Hidden Problems: The Dramatic Decline of Concentrated
Poverty in the 1990s.” Living Cities Census Series, Center on Urban and Metropolitan
Studies. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

——. May 19, 2003. Public Lecture, “Stunning Progress, Hidden Problems: Concentrated
Poverty in the 1990s.” Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Jencks, Christopher, and Susan E. Mayer. 1990. “The Social Consequences of Growing Up in a
Poor Neighborhood.” In Inner-City Poverty in America, edited by Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.
and Michael G. H. McGeary (111-86). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Kain, John F. 1968. “Housing Segregation, Negro Employment, and Metropolitan

Decentralization.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 82(2): 175-97.

——. 1986. “The Influence of Race and Income on Racial Segregation and Housing Policy.” In
Housing Desegregation and Federal Policy, edited by J. M. Goering. Chapel Hill, NC:
University of North Carolina Press. pp. 99-118.

——. 2000. “Racial and Economic Segregation in US Metropolitan Areas.” In The Oxford
Handbook of Economic Geography, edited by Gordon L. Clark, Maryann P. Feldman
and Meric S. Gertler. Oxford University Press.
 158

Kantrowitz, Nathan. 1973. Ethnic and Racial Segregation in the New York Metropolis. New
York: Prager.

Kasarda, John. 1985. “Urban Change and Minority Opportunities.” In The New Urban Reality,
edited by Paul E. Peterson. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

——. 1988. “Jobs, Migration, and Emerging Urban Mismatches.” In Urban Change and
Poverty, edited by Michael G. H. McGeary and Laurence E. Lynn, Jr. (148-98).
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Katz, Bruce, and Jennifer Bradley. 1999. “Divided We Sprawl.” The Atlantic Monthly 284(6):
26-42.

Katz, Lawrence F. 2002. Discussion of “Educational Attainment as a Constraint on Economic

Growth and Social Progress”, by Yolanda K. Kodrzycki.

Kingsley, G. Thomas, and Kathryn L.S. Pettit. 2002. “Population Growth and Decline in City
Neighborhoods.” In the Neighborhood Change in Urban America Series. Washington,
DC: The Urban Institute.

——. 2003. Concentrated Poverty: A Change in Course. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Kleinberg, Benjamin. 1995. Urban America in Transformation: Perspectives on Urban Policy

and Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kunstler, James Howard. 1993. The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of
America’s Man-Made Landscape. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Levy, Frank. 1995. “The Future Path and Consequences of the U.S. Earnings/Education Gap.”
Economic Policy Review 1(1): 35-41.

Lockwood, Charles. 1999. “Sprawl.” Hemispheres September: 82-91.

Lucy, William H., and David L. Phillips. 2000. Confronting Suburban Decline. Washington,
DC: Island Press.

Mallach, Alan. 1984. Inclusionary Housing Programs. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Center for Urban Policy Research.

Massey, Douglas S. 1981. “Social Class and Ethnic Segregation: A Reconsideration of

Methods and Conclusions.” American Sociological Review 46: 641-50.

——. 1996. “The Age of Extremes: Concentrated Affluence and Poverty in the Twenty-first
Century.” Demography 33(4): 399.
 159

Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. 1987. “Trends in the Residential Segregation of
Blacks, Hispanic, and Asians: 1970-1980.” American Sociological Review 52: 802-25.

——. 1988. “The Dimensions of Racial Segregation.” Social Forces 67:281-315.

——. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Massey, Douglas S., and Mitchell L. Eggers. 1990. “The Ecology of Inequality: Minorities and
the Concentration of Poverty, 1970-1980.” American Journal of Sociology 95: 1153-88.

——. 1993. “The Spatial Concentration of Affluence and Poverty During the 1970s.” Urban
Affairs Quarterly 29: 299-315.

Meyer, Bruce D., and Dan T. Rosenbaum. 1999. “Welfare, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and
the Labor Supply of Single Mothers.” JCPR Working Paper Series. World Wide Web
page
<www.jcpr.org/wp/wpdownload.cfm?pdflink=wpfiles/eitc_meyer_rosenbaum_update2
2001.pdf>

Mills, Edwin S. 1972. Studies in the Structure of the Urban Economy. Baltimore, MD: The
Johns Hopkins Press.

——. 1991. “The Measurement and Determinants of Suburbanization.” Journal of Urban

Economics 32(3): 377-87.

Musterd, Sako, and Wim Ostendorf. 1998. “Segregation, Polarisation and Social Exclusion in
Metropolitan Areas.” In Urban Segregation and the Welfare State: Inequality and
exclusion in Western Cities, edited by Sako Musterd and Wim Ostendorf (1-14). New
York: Routledge.

Orfield, Myron. 1997. Metropolitics: A Regional Agenda for Community and Stability.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, and Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land
Policy.

Park, Robert E. 1926. “The Urban Community as a Spatial Pattern and a Moral Order.” In The
Urban Community, edited by E. W. Burgess. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
pp. 3-18.

Pendall, Rolf, and John I. Carruthers. 2003. “Does Density Exacerbate Income Segregation?
Evidence from U.S. Metropolitan Areas, 1980 to 2000.” Housing Policy Debate 14(4):
541-89.
 160

The PolicyLink. 2003. “Expanding Housing Opportunity in Washington, DC: The Case for
Inclusionary Zoning.” A PolicyLink Report. Oakland, CA.

——. 2004. “Inclusionary Zoning.” A PolicyLink Report. Oakland, CA.

Popenoe, David. 1979. “Urban Sprawl: Some Neglected Sociology.” Sociology and Social
Research 31(2): 181-88.

Rector, Robert. 2002. “Housing Policy and Welfare Reform.” Policy Research and Analysis.
The Heritage Foundation. World Wide Web page
<http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test050102.cfm>

Regional Energy Profile. 2001. The Energy Information Administration. World Wide Web
page <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/maps/us_census.html>

Ricketts, Erol R., and Isabel V. Sawhill. 1988. “Defining and Measuring the Underclass.”
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 7(2): 316-25.

Rodgers, William M. III. 2005. “Black Workers Need More Than An Economic Boom.” The
Heldrich Center for Workforce Development Working Papers. World Wide Web page
<www.heldrich.rutgers.edu/Resources/Publication/166/WP_05.pdf>

Schenk, Robert. 2002. “Measuring Income Distribution.” World Wide Web page
<http://ingrimayne.saintjoe.edu/econ/AllocatingRationing/MeasuringIncomeDist.html>

Schiller, Timothy. 2004. “Sprawl: What’s in a Name?” Business Review Q4: 26-38.

Schnare, Ann B. 1980. “Trends in Residential Segregation by Race: 1960-1970.” Journal of

Urban Economics 7:293-301.

Schneider, William. 1992. “The Suburban Century Begins.” The Atlantic Monthly 270(1): 33-
44.

Shlay, Anne B. 2002. Review Comments. In Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences and Policy
Responses, edited by Gregory D. Squires. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

Sierra Club. 1998. “Sprawl: The Dark Side of the American Dream.” World Wide Web page
<http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report98/what.html>

Squires, Gregory D. 1994. Capital and Communities in Black and White: The Intersections of
Race, Class, and Uneven Development. Albany: SUNY Press.

——. 2002. “Urban Sprawl and the Uneven Development of Metropolitan America.” In Urban
Sprawl: Causes, Consequences and Policy Responses, edited by Gregory D. Squires.
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
 161

Staley, Samuel R. 1999. “The Sprawling of America: In Defense of the Dynamic City.” Policy
Study No. 251. Reason Public Policy Institute. World Wide Web page
<http://www.rppi.org/ps251.html>

Taeuber, Karl E., and Alma F. Taeuber. 1965. Negroes in Cities: Residential Segregation and
Neighborhood Change. Chicago: Aldine.

Talen, Emily. 2002. “The Social Goals of New Urbanism.” Housing Policy Debate 13(1): 165-
88.

Tiebout, Charles M. 1956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.” Journal of Political

Economy 64: 416-24.

Tumin, Melvin M. 1969. In A Dictionary of the Social Sciences, edited by Julius Gould and
William L. Kolb. New York: The Free Press.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1992. Studies in the Distribution of Income. Series P60-183.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

——. 1993. Money Income of Households, Families, and Persons in the United States: 1992.
Current Population Reports, Series P60-184. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2000. The State of the Cities 2000.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Unwin, D. J. 1996. “GIS, Spatial Analysis and Spatial Statistics.” Progress in Human
Geography 20(4): 540-441.

Weiss, Marc A. 2002. “National Housing Policy in the U.S. for the 21st Century.” Prague
Institute for Global Urban Development. Prague, Czech Republic and Washington, DC.

White, Michael J. 1983. “The Measurement of Spatial Segregation.” American Journal of

Sociology 88(5): 1008-18.

——. 1986. “Segregation and Diversity Measures in Population Distribution.” Population

Index 52: 198-221.

——. 1987. American Neighborhoods and Residential Differentiation. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation. (Census Monograph Series.)
 162

Wilson, William J. 1980. The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American
Institutions. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

——. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, The Underclass, and Public Policy.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

——. 1996. When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.

Wirth, Louis. 1954. In Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences. Volumes XIII-XIV. The
MacMillan Company.

Wright, Gwendolyn. 1983. Building the Dream. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Zoloth, Barbara S. 1976. “Alternative Measures of School Segregation.” Land Economics 52:
278-93.
 VITA

Rui Yang was born in Beijing, China May 25th, 1977. She completed primary

education in 1995. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in Economics in 2000 at Peking University

in Beijing, China. She earned her Masters of Sciences in Applied Economics in 2003 at the

University of Texas at Dallas. In August 2000 she began her doctoral studies in public policy

and political economy at the University of Texas at Dallas. She worked as a teaching assistant

and research assistant for the School of Social Sciences at the University of Texas at Dallas

from August 2000 till now. After graduation, she will join the Workers Compensation

Research Institute as a Policy Analyst.