zyxw

zyxwv
zyxwvu
Spatial Mismatch and Employment in a Decade of

zyxw
zyxwvutsrq
Restructuring*

Sara McLafferty
Hunter College
Valerie Preston
York University
Spatial barriers to employment limit women’s job opportunities, but their effects differ among racial/ethnic minority
groups. This study evaluates the degree of spatial mismatch for minority women and men by comparing the
commuting times of African American, Latino, and white workers in the New York metropolitan region. Using
Public Use Microdata for 1980 and 1990, we perform a partial decomposition analysis to assess the role of spatial
mismatch in lengthening commuting times for minority workers. T h e results show that African American men and
women living in the center of the region have poorer spatial access to employment than their white counterparts.
In the suburbs, African American women and Latinas suffer no spatial mismatch; rather, their longer commuting
times reflect greater reliance on mass transit. Comparison with 1980 findings reveals little change in spatial mismatch
over time despite significant economic and social restructuring in the 1980s. Spatial barriers still limit employment
prospects for the majority of minority women living at the core of the region. Key Words: gender, urban labor
markets, spatial mismatch, race.

A lmost 30 years ago, John Kain proposed

the “spatial mismatch hypothesis” to ex-
plain the high rates of poverty and unemploy-
ment among African American inner city resi-
dents. Residing in segregated areas distant
from and poorly connected to major centers of
employment growth, African Americans were
said to face strong geographic barriers to find-
ing and keeping well-paid jobs (Kain 1968).
Kain’s hypothesis stimulated a large body of
research on racial differences in unemploy-
ment, wages, and commuting in urban areas
(Holzer 1991), providing a foundation for de-
bates on urban poverty and the urban under-
class (Wilson 1987). T h e mismatch hypothesis,
however, clearly reflects the time in which it
was written. Cities have changed since the
1960s as a result of economic restructuring,
changes in family structure, suburbanization,
and the growing polarization between rich and
poor. These present a continually shifting set
of opportunities, conditions, and constraints
for minority women and men in large cities;
yet the implications for spatial mismatch are
poorly understood.
This research has two main objectives. T h e
first is to describe the changing context of
spatial mismatch in the New York CMSA from
1980 to 1990. Using data from the Public Use
Microdata Sample (PUMS) for both years, we
analyze changes in employment, wages, and
commuting time by gender and race during
the 1980s. T h e second goal is to assess changes
in the degree of spatial mismatch for employed
African Americans and Latinos in the center
and suburbs of the New York region. Differ-
ences in commuting time among gender and
race groups are analyzed, using a partial de-
composition analysis (Blinder 1973), to evalu-
ate the importance of spatial barriers compared
to the effects of class, labor market segmenta-
tion, household structure, and access to trans-
portation. O u r findings show a significant and
persistent spatial mismatch for African Ameri-
can men and women residing in the highly
urbanized, central parts of the metropolitan
region. In contrast, for African Americans and
Latinos in the suburbs, there is no evidence of
spatial mismatch; rather, differences in com-
muting time reflect differences in income, la-
bor market segmentation, and access to trans-
portation. This study expands our previous re-
search on spatial mismatch (McLafferty and
Preston 1992) by computing an explicit meas-
ure of the degree of spatial mismatch, that
controls for other known influences on com-

zyxwvut
zyxwvutsr
muting time. W e also explore changes in spa-
tial mismatch during the 1980s.

‘This research was supported hy rhr National Science Foundauon under grant #SES 9012916. We also rhankjim Huff, the anonymous re-
viewers, and the editor for their thoughtful comments. A Faculty Development grant From York University provided travel support.

Professional Geographcr, 48(4) 1996, pages 42043 1 0 Copyright 1996 by Association of American Geographers.
Initial submission, October 1995; revised submission, May 1996; final acccptance, May 1996.
Published by Blackwcll Publishers, 238 Main Strcet, Cambridge, MA 02142, and 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 IJF, UK.
Background
z
zy
zyxwvut
The spatial mismatch hypothesis describes the
combined effects of residential segregation and
economic restructuring on minorities’ spatial
access to employment opportunities. The cen-
tral argument is that African American, and
possibly Latino, inner-city residents have
poorer spatial access to jobs and employment
information because of their concentration in
segregated residential areas with few nearby
job opportunities (Kain 1968; Ihlanfeldt 1992).
Since then, many researchers have tested the
spatial mismatch hypothesis by assessing racial
differences in unemployment, incomes, and
commuting times and distances (Zax and Kain
1991; Ihlanfeldt 1992; Cooke 1993; Rodgers
1994). Although some recent studies question
the validity of the spatial mismatch hypothesis,
the weight of empirical evidence supports it, a t
least in part. As Holzer (1991, 1 18) concludes
in a recent review: “Blacks in central-city areas
have less access to employment than have
blacks or whites in the suburbs.”
Despite the large literature on the spatial
mismatch, two important issues have not been
adequately addressed, and these serve as gen-
eral motivations for the research presented
here. The first concerns the lack of attention
to women’s economic and domestic roles and
employment problems in the spatial mismatch
zyxwv
literature. With a few recent exceptions (Mad-
den and Chiu 1990; Ihlanfeldt 1992; McLaf-
ferty and Preston 1992), research has focused
on commuting and employment issues for mi-
nority men, neglecting women. Yet African
American and Latina women’s work is criti-
cally important to the economic well-being of
households and communities. Their high rates
of labor force participation, full-time employ-
ment, and single parenthood give women a key
economic role (Zinn 1989). Incorporating gen-
der in the analysis of spatial mismatch requires
an explicit recognition of differences in labor
market experiences, choices, and constraints
for minority men and women.
Facing racial and gender discrimination, mi-
nority women are “doubly disadvantaged” in
urban labor markets (Amott 1992). Their
earnings are less, on average, than those of
white women and minority men, and they are
more likely to work in the low-wage, secon-
dary segment of the labor force (Johnston-
Spatial Mimatch and Employment
Anumonwo et al. 1994). Minority women are
421
overrepresented in service occupations like do-
mestic service, clerical work, and health aid,
and in certain manufacturing occupations such
as textile machine work and assembly. In addi-
zy
tion to these occupational differences, many
African American and Latina women are single
parents, bearing full responsibilities for child
care and economic support of their families
(Preston et al. 1993).
What are the implications for spatial m i s -
match? Minority men and women may have
different housing opportunities, reflecting the
gendered and racialized nature of residential
choice. While both women and men face racial
discrimination in housing markets, as sole par-
ents, women also confront discrimination
against women with children, or they may
need to live near family or day care services for
help with child care. Along with these differ-
ences in residential location, labor market seg-
mentation means that minority women have
different job opportunities than minority men.
In the context of economic restructuring, mi-
nority women’s concentration in service jobs
and low-wage manufacturing may give them
better spatial access to employment than mi-
nority men. How have residential choice proc-
esses and economic restructuring affected spa-
tial mismatch for African American and Latino
women and men during the past decade?
The second issue concerns the need to ana-
lyze changes in spatial mismatch over time. As
noted earlier, the mismatch hypothesis reflects
the time period in which it was developed-a
period in which few African Americans or Lat-
inos lived in the suburbs and deindustrializa-
tion had just begun. In the years since then,
the spatial distributions of jobs and residences
have changed significantly. When linked with
broad patterns of labor market segmentation,
these changes produce an evolving web of job
opportunities for African American and Latino
men and women. More African Americans and
Latinos live in the suburbs, albeit often in a
relatively small number of communities lo-
cated near the city boundary (Schneider and
Phelan 1993). At the same time, employment
opportunities continue to grow and decline
unevenly within metropolitan regions, as
manufacturing firms move to the periphery
and service jobs in certain sectors expand se-
lectively in some central and suburban loca-
422 zyxwvu
zyxw
Volume 48, Number 4, November 1996
tions (Mollenkopf and Castells 1991). T h e im-
plications of these changes for spatial mis-
match are poorly understood. Theoretically,
the loss of manufacturing jobs should lead to
an increasing spatial mismatch for minorities
in the center, especially minority men. On the
other hand, for those with appropriate skills
and education, the growth of producer service
jobs in the cores of large cities may lead to
improved spatial access to employment for
those resident in the center. In the suburbs, we
may see the emergence of a spatial mismatch
as minority residents cluster in communities
near the city boundary, and jobs tnove to more
distant suburban and exurban areas.
zyxw
To analyze these issues, we present a case
study of the spatial mismatch hypothesis for
the New York metropolitan r e g o n from 1980
to 1990. T h e next section describes the meth-
ods and data used in evaluating the mismatch
hypothesis. In the subsequent section, we ana-
lyze general trends in residential and work-
place location in the metropolitan region and
zyxwvuts
changes in coinmuting times by gender and
race. Finally, we discuss the results of the de-
composition analysis of changes in spatial mis-
match for employed persons over time for the
central and suburban parts of the metropolitan
area.
Methods and Data
To compare levels of spatial access to employ-
ment among race and ethnic groups, many
studies have analyzed commuting times or dis-
tances for employed workers (Gordon et al.
1989; Holzer 1991). Longer work trips for
African Americans or Latinos are thought to
indicate mismatch since workers must travel
longer, on average, to reach their jobs. Such an
approach, however, neglects the many factors
that constrain and motivate workers’ commut-
ing decisions. Long commuting trips d o not
necessarily signal a spatial mismatch. High-in-
come workers, and those with children, often
choose to live in attractive residential areas
distant from work to gain other amenities
(Brun and Fagnani 1994). In these cases the
long worktrip results from a conscious choice
rather than a spatial constraint. Although some
researchers have analyzed these confounding
factors separately in their studies of commut-
ing times (Gordon et al. 1989; Johnston-Anu-
monwo 1992), given the number of possible
factors, a multivariate approach is desirable.
To take into the account the many factors
affecting commuting times, we employ partial
decomposition analysis (Blinder 1973; Oaxaca
1973). this method is widely used in analyzing
wage discrimination (Goldin 1990) and has
also been used to study racial differences in
unemployment (Ihlanfeldt and Sjoquist 1990).
T h e method involves a comparison of African
Americans’ (or Latinos’) actual average com-
muting time with the average commuting time
they could be expected to have given their
earnings, education, access to transportation,
and other socio-demographic characteristics.
T h e difference between actual and expected
commuting times is a measure of spatial mis-
match.
For each gendedrace group in the center
and suburbs, we estimate the following model:
Time = f(D,E,H,T),
where:
D is a set of demographic variables includ-
ing age and education.
E is a set of economic variables measuring
the individual’s earnings, occupation, in-
dustry of employment and household in-
come.
H is a set of variables describing household
characteristics such as marital status and
presence of children.
T is a set of variables describing the mode
of transportation used.
Models are estimated separately for each group
via least squares. To determine expected com-
muting times, the mean values on all variables
for one group (i.e., African American women)
are substituted in the equation for a corre-
sponding reference group (i.e., white women).
In particular, if b,vf is the vector of parameter
values for the reference group equation (white
women) and X,f is the vector of mean values
on all variables for the comparison group (Af-
zyx
rican American women), the expected com-
muting time for African American women
(td,Vff) is:
Lf,d = C[bwfX,fI
T h e resulting value is the expected commut-
ing time for an “average” African American
woman if she were able to make the same
commuting choices as an equivalent white
woman. Because we have controlled all factors
except residential location in determining the
expected commuting times, the difference be-
tween actual and expected times provides a
measure of spatial mismatch. The actual time
includes the effects of residential location,
whereas the expected time does not. Thus, a
positive difference between actual and ex-
pected times indicates a spatial mismatch. To
check the sensitivity of the results, one can also
reverse the reference and comparison groups,
in which case a negative value would indicate
a spatial mismatch.
The above model represents well-known
hypotheses about the determinants of com-
muting times. Economic factors, such as earn-
ings, occupation, and education are expected
to have positive effects on commuting time,
with workers in high-status, primary occupa-
tions, with high earnings and education, hav-
ing longer times (Ihlanfeldt 1992). Industry of
employment is expected to affect commuting
time independent of wages and occupation,
insofar as it reflects the geographic concentra-
tion of employment in different sectors. In the
New York region, jobs in producer services are
strongly concentrated in Manhattan, and this
clustered spatial pattern should result in longer
commuting times.
The effects of household characteristics on
commuting times are expected to differ by race
and gender. In juggling the competing de-
mands of domestic work, child care, and paid
employment, women may opt to work near
home to free time for domestic responsibilities
(Johnston-Anumonwo 1992). In contrast, mi-
nority women’s more constrained residential
and job opportunity sets may give them less
ability to reduce work trips when faced with
competing domestic and employment de-
mands. Finally, mode of transportation
strongly affects commuting time. Workers
who rely on mass transit spend more time
commuting than do workers who travel by car,
regardless of distance (Singell and Lillydahl
1986).
In analyzing these relationships, we utilized
data from the 1980 and 1990 Public Use Mi-
crodata Samples (PUMS) for the New York
metropolitan region. Our samples include only
people employed in the paid labor force. Un-
employed workers-an important group in the
Spatial Mimatch and Employment zyz
spatial mismatch debate-are not considered.
The sample size for 1980 is approximately
423
180,000, while for 1990 it is more than double
that-400,000. The PUMS data provide all the
information needed to estimate the regression
models, although several variables had to be
simplified to achieve mathematical tractability.
As in all census information, the identifica-
tion of raciallethnic groups is problematic.
Race typically refers to biological differences
of sociocultural significance to a society that
“racializes” those differences. Ethnicity refers
to cultural differences reflecting religion, na-
tional origin, and language. The race variable
in the census reports an individual’s self iden-
tification as a member of a racial group. We
used this variable to identify the African
American and white populations. We defined
as Latino those people who identified their
race as “Spanish,” and those persons regardless
of race who stated they were of Hispanic ori-
gin. While there are contradictions inherent in
any effort to define race and ethnicity, these
are among the most significant aspects of social
identity. Race as socially constructed in the
United States profoundly influences daily ex-
perience. Inequality in American society is still
rooted in race and ethnicity (Johnson et al.
1994).
The economic variables include household
income, weekly earnings, industry and occupa-
tion of employment. We combined industries
into three groups: “old core” industries, pro-
ducer services, and consumer services. The
“old core” includes manufacturing, wholesal-
ing, construction, and transportation (Buck
et al. 1992). The producer service sector in-
cludes jobs in finance, insurance and real es-
tate, and business services; the consumer serv-
ice sector comprises jobs in personal services,
health, education, social services, retailing, and
government. T o measure occupational seg-
mentation, we created a dummy variable that
differentiates high-status primary occupations
from low-status secondary occupations accord-
ing to the classification described by Amott
(1992). Although these two categories greatly
simplify occupational differentiation, using
more detailed classifications had little impact
on the results.
We analyzed household characteristics based
on combinations of marital status and the pres-
ence of children in the household. Using
424 zyxwvu
zyxw
zyxwvu
Volume 48, Number 4, November 1996

dummy variables, four situations were identi-

fied: (1) married with children a t home, (2)

or widowed) with children a t home, (3) mar-

ried with no children at home, and (4) single
of capital that stimulated rapid expansion in
financial services and related producer services
single (i.e., never married, divorced, separated,
while failing to arrest the loss of manufacturing
jobs (Sassen 1991; Mollenkopf and Castells
1991). In the center, between 1980 and 1990,
with no children a t home. Access to transpor- the old core’s share of total employment in-
tation is captured by two variables: the number creased 1.7%, largely because of the revival of
of cars available in the household and a dummy small-scale manufacturing in the inner ring of
variable equal to one if the person uses mass counties surrounding Manhattan (Table 1). In
transit for commuting to work. We singled out the suburbs, the old core’s employment share
fell 1.8%.
mass transit (bus, subway, light rail, and ferry)
because it involved significantly longer travel Service industries in the New York region
times than other modes of transportation. are increasingly differentiated spatially and
The study area consists of the 24 counties functionally. Manhattan remains the preemi-
that make up the New York Consolidated nent location for producer services in the re-
gion, with the highest concentrations of em-
Metropolitan Statistical Area. It is divided into
two parts, the center and the suburbs, that ployment and the most sophisticated financial
have experienced distinct population and em- and business activities. In 1990, 19.9% of jobs
ployment trends. The center includes Manhat- at the center of the New York region were in
tan and the other urbanized counties of New producer services (Table 1). However, employ-
York City and the nearby urban counties in ment in producer services has increased stead-
New Jersey, including the cities of Newark and ily in the suburbs. In addition to back-office
Jersey City. These counties are characterized activities, producer service firms oriented to a

zyxwvut
by high population densities, high reliance on
mass transit, and low median household in-
come levels. In contrast, the suburbs include
all counties outside the urban core. In this
group are older suburban counties like
Westchester, NY,and more distant exurban
counties in New York, New Jersey, and Con-
necticut. The suburban counties typically have
moderate population densities, low rates of
mass transit use, and relatively high median
incomes. However, there is considerable diver- work in primary occupations (Table 1). The
local or regional market have located in the
suburbs where by 1990, producer services ac-
counted for 18.7% of jobs (Table 1).
Many argue that these sectoral shifts have
polarized the labor market between well-paid
professionals and managers employed in pri-
mary occupations and poorly paid service,
sales, and clerical workers in secondary occu-
pations (Sassen 1991). Suburban residents are
still more likely than are central residents to

zyxwv
sity among suburban counties, particularly be- high proportion of suburban residents in pri-
tween the older, high-income suburbs near the mary occupations results in large wage differ-

zyxwvu
center where population and employment are entials between central and suburban residents.
stable or declining, and the exurban counties In 1990, suburban workers still earned sub-
that have seen rapid growth in employment stantially more than central workers despite
and population in the last decade. large wage increases throughout the region
(Table 1).
Changes in the New York Region: The New York region is typical of older and
1980-1 990 larger cities of the Northeast and Midwest,
where segregation is most enduring (Massey
Three aspects of New York‘s changing geog- and Denton 1993; Farley and Frey 1994). Per-
raphy are relevant for our analysis: continued sistent segregation is readily apparent from our
deindustrialization and the relocation of manu- analysis of workers living in different parts of
facturing jobs to the periphery of the region, the region. African American and Latino
continuing growth and differentiation of serv- workers are still concentrated a t the center of
ice sector employment, and the persistence of the region where, in 1990, they accounted for
residential segregation. New York is one of 38% of the resident workforce while in the
several cities transformed by the globalization suburbs their share was 10% (Table 1). For
 zyxwvuts zyz
zy
zyxwvutsrqpo 1980
Central
1990
Spatial Mismatch and Employment

Table 7 Characteristics of Workers in the New York CMSA, 1980-1990 (percentages?

Changeb
Location

1980
Suburbs
1990
425

Change
Industry
Old Core 38.1 39 8 1.7 40 3 38 5 -1 8
Consumer Service 41.7 40 3 -1.4 43 9 42 8 -1 1
Producer Service 20.3 19 9 -0 4 158 18.7 29

zyxw
Race
African American 192 19 5 03 52 52 00
Latino 14 4 18.5 41 34 49 15
White 62 2 53.7 -8 5 88.6 86 4 -2 2
Sex
Men 54 7 52 6 -2 1 58 2 55 2 -3 0
Women 45 3 47 4 21 41 8 44 8 30
Occupation
Primary 47 1 48 1 10 54 9 58 7 38
Secondary 52 9 51 9 -1 0 45 1 41 3 -3 8
Means of Transportation
Automobile 41 5 45 7 42 81 8 84 5 -2 7
Transit 45 4 41 0 -4 4 11 4 94 -2 0

zyxwvu
Other 13 1 13 3 02 68 61 07
Mean weekly earnings

zyxwvu
(dollars)c $284 88 $623 84 $323 09 $713 21
Mean cornmuting time
Iminutesl 34 0 32 3 28 5 27 6
"All statistics are reported for workers disaggregated by place of residence.
'Change.s in shares do not sum to zero because of roundzng exceptfor race where the list of raciakhnic groups is not exhaustive.
'Mean weekly earnings are reported in 1979 and 1989 dollars, respectively.

white workers living in the center, their share
of the resident workforce declined by more
than 8%, largely as a result of a growing Asian
population.
The changing spatial patterns of employ-
ment and residence in New York mean that
women's work experiences have unfolded dif-
ferently in each part of the region. Mirroring
national trends, women's participation in the
labor market increased steadily during the
1980s. By 1990, women accounted for 47.4%
of workers living at the center of the region
and 44.8% of those in the suburbs (Table 1).
The biggest increase was in the suburbs where
women's share of the resident labor force in-
creased by 3.0 percentage points. At the center
of the region where women have historically
had higher-than-average participation in paid
employment, the increase was much smaller,
only 1.7 percentage points.
Despite substantial investments in public
transit during the 1980s, workers in both parts
of the region were less likely to commute by
transit in 1990 than in 1980. The decline was
most precipitous at the center of the region,
where transit use decreased by 4.4 percentage
points, replaced by driving and other means of
transportation, mainly walking to work. In the
suburbs, transit use also declined but only by
2.0 percentage points. Increased reliance on
the automobile has contributed to slightly
shorter commuting times in both the center
and the suburbs. Between I980 and 1990,
mean commuting times fell by 1.6 minutes for
central workers and by 0.4 minutes for subur-
ban workers.
The 1980s saw considerable movement of
women into primary occupations. white
women, in particular, made substantial ad-
vances. In the center, almost half of white fe-
male workers, 47.7%, were employed in pri-
mary occupations by 1990, an increase of 11.9
percentage points. Progress has been slower
for minority women living a t the center of the
region. The proportions of minority women in
primary occupations are lower (28.6% and
23.1% for African American and Latina
women, respectively), and the magnitudes of
change are smaller (5.4 and 3.5%). Occupa-
tional change was faster in the suburbs, where
the small number of minority women have
made relatively more progress in moving into
 zyxwvu
zyxwvu
zyxw
zy
426 Volume 48, Number 4, November 1996
primary occupations. For example, the share of Spatial Mismatch Results
African American women in primary occupa-
~~

tions increased by 7.8% in the suburbs com- The longer average commuting times for Af-
pared with a slightly smaller increase of 5.4% rican Americans and Latinos suggest a persist-
in the center. In both the center and the sub- ence of the spatial mismatch during the 1980s.
urbs, Latinas have made the least progress However, as noted earlier, those comparisons

zyxw
moving into primary occupations. fail to account for class, economic status, and
Commuting times suggest that spatial mis- other factors that affect commuting time. We
match is a continuing problem. In 1980 and incorporated these factors by estimating the
1990, minority workers commuted longer regression equations described earlier for each
times than white workers, although gender and genderhace group in the center and suburbs.
race differences have diminished slightly (Ta- Table 3 shows coefficients of determination
ble 2). Commuting times are still significantly and sample sizes for the regression models for
shorter for minority workers in the suburbs 1980 and 1990, respectively. Given the large
than for those in the central city. African sample sizes, the models fit moderately well,
American women and Latinas living in the with R2 values ranging from .20 to .40. All
suburbs have average commuting times that values were significantly different from zero
are 11.1 minutes and 9.2 minutes less than (p = 0.05).
those of their counterparts in the central city. T h e parameters of the regression models are
The gender gap in commuting time varies not shown here because of the exceptionally
significantlybetween center and suburb. At the large number of values. Instead, we identify
center of the New York region, minority men the most significant and consistent results to
and women commute equally long times, while provide a context for the discussion of spatial
in the suburbs, there is a modest gender dif- mismatch. (For a more detailed discussion of
ference in commuting times for Latinos and gender and racial differences in the determi-
African Americans as well as a large gender nants of commuting time, see McLafferty and
difference for whites. On the one hand, the Preston, forthcoming.) In all models, mode of
existence of gender differences in commuting transportation has the most significant impact
time among minority workers is an encourag- on commuting times. Regardless of gender,
ing indication that, in New York's suburbs, race, or residential location, workers relying on
Latina and African American women may be mass transit spend from 20 to 40 minutes

zyxwvut
wealthy enough that they can accommodate longer commuting than do comparable work-
household and employment responsibilities by ers who use other modes. Economic and class
working close to home. On the other hand, variables are also significant. For all groups in
Latina and African American women in the all contexts, the log of weekly earnings has a
suburbs still commute longer than white sub- strong positive association with time. High

zyxwvut
urban women. earnings both enable and encourage workers

Table 2 Mean Commuting Times by Gender and Race, 1980-1990 (minutes)

1980 1990 Change
Central
African American men 39 1 37 3 -1 8
African American women 40 4 37 8 -2 6
Latino men 34 8 33 3 -1 5
Latina women 35 7 33 8 -1 9
White men 32 5 31 9 -0 8
White women 30 8 28 8 -2 0
Suburbs
African American men 28 7 29 5 08
African American women 25 6 26 7 11
Latino men 31 2 28 3 -2 9
Latina women 25 0 24 6 -0 4
White men 33 1 32 1 -1 0
White women 22 0 23 0 10
Centei
zyxwvu
zyxwv
zyxwvut z
zy
zyxwvuts
Table 3 Goodness of Fjr Statistics
1980
African
American Latino White
Spatial Mismatch and Employment 42 7
commute from two to five minutes longer, on
average, than their unmarried counterparts, ir-
respective of the presence of children. Mar-
riage, then, appears to either encourage or en-
able men to commute longer. This result may
Men R? ia 22 27

Women
N 6799 6386 24920 reflect the unequal gender division of labor in
R’ 23 28 36
N 7859 4555 20552 many married couple households, or the ten-
Suburbs
Men
dency to purchase a suburban residence upon
R2 31 34 38
N 2074 1623 40109 marriage. It may explain, in part, the very large
Women R2 29 36 40 gender disparity in commuting time in subur-
N 221 1 1182 29944
ban areas where married couples predominate.
1990 The spatial mismatch results are shown in
African Figure 1 for 1980 and 1990, respectively. For

zyxwvutsrqpo
American Latino White
each gender and race/ethnic group, we present
Center
Men R’ 20 23 25 the actual and expected average commuting
N 7735 9886 30364 times. The difference (actual-expected) indi-
Women R2 25 30 34
N 10684 7873 26623 cates spatial mismatch. All results use the white
Suburbs population as a reference group; however, we
Men R’ 21 23 24
N 3524 4113 77726 found that reversing the reference group had

Women RZ 29 29 32
N 4260 3218 63436
from all race and ethnic groups to lengthen
their commuting trips. Other economic and
class variables have smaller and less consistent
effects on commuting time. Older workers,
and workers with more years of education,
often have longer work trips. In many cases,
workers in producer services have significantly
longer commutes, reflecting the continued
spatial concentration of employment in this
sector in lower Manhattan.
While the impacts of transportation, class,
and economic variables are similar for men and
women, the effects of household variables are
strikingly different. Among women, only white
women appear to reduce their commuting
times to accommodate domestic responsibili-
ties. In both the center and suburbs, married
white women with children have shorter com-
mutes than other white women, indicating that
they are able or choose to reduce commuting
time in order to free time for child care and
other domestic chores. In contrast, African
American and Latina women have no such
opportunity, and their commuting times vary
little with marital status and the presence of
children. For all race/ethnic groups in the cen-
ter and suburbs, the effects of household vari-
ables are substantially larger for men than for
women. Marriage is the key dimension of
household structure for men. Married men
z
little impact on the findings. As is evident in
Figure 1, in both 1980 and 1990, a significant
spatial mismatch existed for African American
men and women living in the center of the
metropolitan region. In 1980, African Ameri-
can women’s actual commuting times were six
minutes higher than expected and men’s were
five minutes higher. These differences are
large in comparison with eight- to ten-minute
gap in average commuting times between Af-
rican Americans and whites, indicating that
poor spatial access to employment, as reflected
in long commuting times, accounts for a siz-
able portion of observed racial disparities. By
1990, spatial mismatch had reduced slightly, to
five minutes for women and almost four min-
utes for men. Given the overall decline in
commuting times for all groups, however, the
spatial mismatch is still large and significant.
For Latinos in the center, our results pro-
vide less evidence of spatial mismatch. In 1980,
the difference between actual and expected
times was 1.98 minutes for Latina women and
0.8 minutes for men; by 1990 the differences
had changed to 2.16 and 0.60 minutes, respec-
tively. The greater mismatch for women than
for men indicates Latinas’ poorer geographical
access to the types of jobs in which they nor-
mally work. Many Latina women work in pri-
vate household, health care, and service jobs
that are concentrated in congested Manhattan.
Although our model controls for occupation,
the very broad categories used here may not
428 zyxwvu
zyxw
zyx
Volume 48, Number 4, November 1996

zyxwvut A
Spatial Mismatch: Center

‘ A
0
i
i A I
I

20 J zyxwvutsrqp
1980
Black Women
1990 1980 1990
Latina Women
1980 1990
Black Men
1980 1990
Latino Men
AActual

-Expected

zyx
Spatial Mismatch: Suburbs

zyxwv
E

zyxwvutsrq
i=

-5
<>
35

zyxwvut
25

zyxwvuts
20 1
P

1980 1990
Black Women
1980 1990
Latina Women
h X

1980 1990
Black Men
E
X

1980 1990
Latino Men

Figure 1: Spatial mismatch by gender, race, and residentla/ location, 1980 and 1990.
I
A Actual
-Expected
-1

capture these detailed, gendered, occupational
effects.
In sharp contrast to the results for workers
living in the center, for employed suburban
workers we find no signs of spatial mismatch.
After taking into account socioeconomic, geo-
graphic, and household factors, African Ameri-
cans’ and Latinos’ average commuting times
are approximately equal to the expected values
and thus are similar to those of white suburban
women with the same characteristics. This
suggests that the longer commuting times for
African Americans and Latinos in the suburbs
are largely the result of differences in mode of
transportation, earnings, education, and house-
hold structure, rather than an explicitly spatial
mismatch. Theoretically, minorities’ lower av-
erage earnings and education levels should lead
to shorter commuting times; therefore, the
longer average commuting times in the sub-
urbs are likely the result of mass transit use.
Our data indicate that even in the suburbs,
African Americans and Latinos are much more
reliant on mass transit than are white men and
women. Minority suburban women, in particu-
lar, are two to three times more likely to com-
mute by mass transit than are their white coun-
terparts.
These findings confirm past studies that in-
dicate that spatial mismatch is a more severe
problem for urban than suburban residents
(Zax and Kain 1991). African American work-
ers living in central areas face a spatial mis-
match that necessitates longer commuting
times than those of white workers with similar
social and economic characteristics and access
to transportation. This spatial mismatch is not
less for African American women than for Af-
rican American men; indeed it is greater. Inso-
far as our spatial mismatch measure shows the
effects of residential segregation, these results
suggest that in the center, African American
women’s residential choices are even more
geographically constrained than those of Afri-
zyxwvut
can American men. Also, for both men and
women, spatial mismatch has remained re-
markably stable during the 1980s. Although
the degree of spatial mismatch decreased
slightly over time, it is still large in both abso-
lute and relative terms.
Conclusions
What are the implications of these findings for
urban policy making? Our results confirm
what many others have argued-that African
Americans in central cities continue to face
significant spatial barriers in traveling to work.
These lead both women and men to spend
more time commuting, time that is unavailable
for other purposes. While we have not looked
a t the impacts on employment and work per-
formance, longer commuting times could cer-
tainly pose a significant barrier to finding and
holding a job (Rodgers 1994). Reducing these
barriers will require highly focused job infor-
mation and placement policies that are sensi-
tive to the employment needs of African
American men and women in central city
neighborhoods. Community-based economic
development is also essential for generating job
opportunities and local business ownership
within a reasonable commuting range. Along
with these job-focused strategies, policies to
reduce racial segregation and discrimination in
housing markets will also have important
benefits.
The situation in the suburbs differs signifi-
cantly, with little evidence of an explicitly spa-
tial mismatch. For the fraction of African
Americans and Latinos who now reside in sub-
urban areas, living in the suburbs carries no
spatial penalty, at least in terms of commuting
time. Despite this, African American women
and Latinas in the suburbs continue to spend
more time commuting, on average, than white
women, mainly because of their much greater
reliance on mass transit. Although not a purely
spatial mismatch, in the sense of the term used
in this paper, access to transportation is a prob-
Spatial Mismatch and Employment
lem with strong and obvious geographic di-
mensions.
z
zy429
Analyzing these issues calls for additional
research in several areas. First, the measure-
ment of spatial mismatch needs to be further
refined and the sensitivity of results explored
to assess the generality and robustness of these
findings. The models estimated in this paper
may have measurement and specification er-
rors that can affect the estimates of spatial
mismatch (Hashimoto and Kochin 1980). Spe-
cifically, the occupation and transportation
variables were highly simplified and thus may
fail to represent finer-grained effects. Using a
single dummy variable to measure transit use,
for example, assumes that mass transit adds a
fixed amount to individuals’ commute times. In
reality, the effect of mass transit is apt to vary
with travel distance. More detailed measures of
economic, household, and transportation fac-
tors should be incorporated to estimate more
accurately workers’ commuting times. How-
ever, given the variability of individual and
household circumstances and the complexity
of residential and workplace location decision
making, it is unlikely that any aggregate model
can account for more than a fraction of the
variation in workers’ commuting times (Han-
son and Pratt 1995).
Second, we have only analyzed spatial mis-
match for employed workers and thus are
omitting one of the most important groups in
the spatial mismatch debate, the unemployed.
Recent research on the links between spatial
access to jobs and unemployment gives con-
flicting results (Ihlanfeldt 1992; Cooke 1993).
Further work is needed to unravel the impacts
of poor geographical access to potential em-
ployment opportunities on job information,
job search, and unemployment for African
American and Latino women and men (Rodg-
ers 1994).
Finally, further research on the spatial mis-
match of minority women is sorely needed.
We have emphasized gender differences in la-
bor market segmentation as a basis for expect-
ing gender disparities in spatial mismatch, but
gender affects minority women’s decisions and
circumstances well beyond the economic
sphere. Factors such as access to child care and
other services, proximity to family, and dis-
crimination in housing against women with
children influence women’s and men’s residen-
 zyxwvu
zyxw
430 Volume 48, Number 4, November 1996
tial and employment decisions in profoundly
different ways. Qualitative and quantitative
studies are needed to explore how these proc-
zyxwvuts
esses unfold in inner-city and suburban set-
tings. Understanding women's decisions and
responsibilities in geographically, socially, and
economically constrained environments is a
significant topic for future spatial mismatch
research. W
Literature Review
Amon, T . 1992. Women and the US Economy Today.
New York: Basic books.
Blinder, A. 1973. Wage discrimination: Reduced
zyxw
zyxwvutsrq
form and structural estimates. Human Resources
8:436-55.
zyxwvut
Bnin, J. and J. Fagnani. 1994. Lifestyles and loca-
tional choices-Trade-offs and compromises: A
case study of middle-class couples living in the
Ile-de-France region. Urban Studies 3 1:92 1-34.
Buck, N., M. Drennan, and K. Newton. 1992. Dy-
namics of the metropolitan economy. In Divided
Cities, New York and London in the Contemporary
World, ed. S. Fainstein, I. Gordon, and M. Harloe,
68-104. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Cooke, T . 1993. Proximity to job opportunities and
African-American inale job opportunities: A test
of the spatial mismatch hypothesis in Indianapolis.
Profissional Geographer 4S :407- 15.
Farlcy, R. and W. Frey. 1994. Changes in the segre-
zyxwvutsr
gation of whites from blacks during the 1980s:
Small steps toward a more integrated society.
American Sociological Review 5 9 2 3 4 5 .
Goldin, C. 1990. Understanding the Gender Gap. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Gordon, P., A. Kumar, and H. hchardson. 1989.
'The spatial mismatch hypothesis: Some new evi-
dence. Urban Studies 26:3 15-26.
Hanson, S., and C;. Pratt. 1995. Gender, Work and
Space. New York: Routlcdge.
Hashimoto, M., and L. Kochin. 1980. A bias in the
statistical estimation of the effects of discrimina-
zyxwvuts
tion. Economic Inquiiy 18:478-86.
zyxw
Ilolzer, H . 1991. T h e spatial mismatch hypothesis:
What has the evidence shown? Urban Studies
28:105-22.
Ihlanfeldt, K. 1992. Job Accessibility and the Employ-
ment and School Enrollment of Teenagers. Kalama-
zoo: W. E. Upjohn.
Ihlanfeldt, K., and D. Sjoquist. 1990. Job accessibil-
ity and racial differences in youth employment
rates. American Economic Review 80:267-76.
Johnson, J., Jr., M. Oliver, and L. Bobo. 1994. Un-
derstanding the contours of deepening urban in-
equality: Theoretical underpinnings and research
design of a multi-city study. Urban Geography
15377-89.
Johnston-Anumonwo, I. 1992. The influence of
household type on gender differences in work trip
distance. Profissional Geographer 44:161-69.
Johnston-Anumonwo, I., S. McLafferty, and V.
Preston. 1994. Gender, race and the spatial con-
text of women's employment. In Gender in Urban
Research, ed. J. Garber and R. Turner, 236-55.
Thousand O a k , CA: Sage Publications.
Kain, J. 1968. Housing segregation, Negro employ-
ment, and metropolitan decentralization. Quar-
terly 'journal of Economics 82:175-97.
Madden, J., and L. Chui. 1990. The wage effects of
residential location and unemployment on em-
ployed married women. Urban Studies 27:353-69.
Massey, D. and N . Denton. 1993. American Apart-
heid: SeFegation arid the Making of the Underclass.
-.
Cambridge, MA: IIarvard University.
McLafferty, S., and V. Preston. 1992. Spatial mis-
match and labor market segmentation for African-
American and Latina women. Economic Gcogruphy
68:406-3 1.
Forthcoming. Gender, race and the deter-
minants of commuting: New York in 1990. Urban
Geop-aphy.
Mollenkopf, J., and M. Castells. 1991. Dual City,
Resmcturing New York. New York: Kussell Sage
Foundation.
Oaxaca, R. 1973. Male-female wage differentials in
urban labor markets. Ivitcmational Economic Review
143693-709.
Preston, V., S. McLafferty, and E. Hamilton. 1993.
T h e impact of family status on black, white and
Hispanic women's commuting. Urban Geography
14:22 8-50.
Rodgers, C. 1994. Job search and unemployment
duration: Implications for the spatial mismatch
hypothesis. Research Paper No. 9437. Morgan-
town, WV: West Virginia University, Regional
Research Institute.
Sassen, S. 1991. The Global City: New York, London,
Tokyo. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schneider, M., and T . Phelan. 1993. Black subur-
banization in the 1980s. Demography 30:269-79.
Singell: L., and J. Lillydahl. 1986. An empirical
analysis of the commute to work patterns of males
and females in two-earner households. Urban
Studies 23:1119-29.
Waldinger, R., and T. Bailey. 1991. The changing
ethnichacia1 division of labor. In Dual City, Rc-
structuring New York, ed. J. Mollenkopf and M.
Castells, 43-78. New York: Russell Sage Founda-
tion.
Wilson, W. J. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Zax, J., and J. Kain. 1991. Commutes, quits and
moves. Journal of Urban Economics 293153-65.
 zyxwvutsz
zy
Zinn, M. 1989. Family, race and poverty in the
eighties. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and
Race, Gender, and Spatial Segmentation

markets, spatial analysis, and the geography of health

and health care.
43 1

zyxwv
Sociery 14:856-74.
VALERIE P R E S T O N is Associate Professor in the
SARA McLAFFERTY is Associate Professor in the Department of Geography, York University, North
Department of Geography, Hunter College, 695 York, Ontario M3J 1P3, Canada. H e r research in-

z
Park Avenue, N e w York, NY 10021. H e r research terest include gender and urban labor markets, im-
interests include gender and race in urban labor migration, and urban social policy.

Race, Gender, and Spatial Segmentation in the Twin Cities+

Elvin K. Wyly
Rutgers University
zyxw
This study analyzes commuting trends in a relatively vibrant setting during the 1980s to determine (a) how labor
market segmentation correlates with differences in the spatial dimensions of local labor markets, and (b) whether
this link represents a direct spatial effect, independent of earnings, travel mode, and part-time work. I use 1980 and
1990 PUMS data to analyze changes in racial and gender divisions in the workforce, and I develop an estimate of
work trip distance to adjust for different travel modes. For all groups except white men, employment in a job
“typical” of one’s gender and racial group is associated with more localized commutes, hut this effect is strongly
mediated by variations in earnings and part-time work. Using a covariance structure model to control for these
effects, I find no independent link between segmentation and longer comniutes among African Americans. Earnings

zyxwv
and commute distances remained unchanged over the decade for African Americans, providing no evidence of a
purely spatial mismatch manifest in lengthening work trips without corresponding wage gains. T h e spatial dimen-
sions of an employment mismatch for inner-city minorities are concealed through the replacement of production
jobs by poorly paid service work in the expanding downtown economy of a vihrant regional center. Key Words:
spatial mismatch, labor market segmentation, commuting.

Introduction tween labor market segmentation and mis-

match, and the resurgence of interest in the

FL esearch on the economic restructuring of

ecent decades highlights a deepening ra-
cia1 polarization of the North American city,
as evidenced by rising unemployment and pov-
erty among urban African Americans (Wilson
1987; Kasarda 1989; Galster 1991; Massey and
Denton 1993). This research has reopened de-
bate over John Kain’s (1968) celebrated “spa-
tial mismatch” hypothesis, which correlates
worsening inner-city unemployment and pov-
erty with residential segregation and intraur-
ban locational shifts in employment growth.
Yet with few exceptions (McLafferty and Pre-
ston 1992), analysts overlook the relations be-
spatial mismatch largely ignores the circum-
stances of minority women-despite a growing
body of evidence on the durability of gender
divisions in urban labor markets (Hanson and
Pratt 1988b, 1995; Tomaskovic-Devey 1993).
Consequently, the relations between racial and
gender divisions in the workforce and urban
spatial restructuring remain unclear. This
study analyzes changes in the spatial dimen-
sions of labor market segmentation in a rela-
tively vibrant setting, focusing on the commut-
ing patterns of male and female African
American and white workers in the Minneapo-
lis-St. Paul region during the 1980s.

Professional Geographer, 48(4) 1996, p a g e 43 -1zyxwvutsrqp

‘I thank John S . Adams and three anrinymour reviewers for vdluabk criticisms and suggestions on earlier versions of h s manuscript. This pa-
per is a suhstannally revised and expanded version of research presented a t the 1995 annual meeting of thc Asaociaoon of American Geogra-
phers.

0 Copyright 1996 by Association of American Geographers.

Initial submission, August 1995; revised submissions, April 1996, May 1996; final acceptance, May 1996.
Published by Blackwell Publishers, 238 Main Street, Cambridge, M A 02142, and 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 IJF, UK.