Extended Working Paper Submission
Population Association of America 2016 Annual Meeting
Vietnamese Segregation within a Suburban Ethnic Enclave
Bonnie Bui, MA
Doctoral Candidate
Department of Sociology
University of California, Irvine
[email protected]
EXTENDED WORKING PAPER – PLEASE DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
1
Abstract
Vietnamese in Orange County, CA, are a new immigrant group, and so their patterns of
assimilation may be different from other Asian ethnic groups that have a longer history in
the area. In this paper, I employ the index of dissimilarity to examine spatial distance
among the major ethnic groups in the Westminster area in Orange County, CA,
comparing the differences in segregation among groups from 2000 to 2010 and using
spatial distance as a proxy measure for social distance. I seek to find whether the
predictions of the traditional spatial assimilation model would be consistent in explaining
the integration of Vietnamese, which predicts less segregation over time. Using 2000 and
2010 U.S. Census data, I find that while segregation for non-Vietnamese Asians is
relatively low and decreased from 2000 to 2010, the segregation of Vietnamese and
Hispanics/Latinos from whites has increased from 2000 to 2010.
2
INTRODUCTION
Vietnamese in Orange County are a new immigrant group, and so their patterns of
assimilation are very different from other Asian ethnic groups that have a longer history
in this country. Much of the literature on assimilation focuses on the segregation of
Asians, blacks, and Hispanics/Latinos from whites, but there is a paucity of research
specifically on Vietnamese.
Assimilation has many dimensions, one of which is residential location. The
measure of spatial distance between groups is used to study assimilation, and is a proxy
measure for social distance. This report will examine spatial distance among the major
ethnic groups in the Westminster area in Orange County, CA, comparing the differences
in segregation among groups from 2000 to 2010.
BACKGROUND OF THE VIETNAMESE COMMUNITY
Refugee Status
Though Vietnamese immigrants are diverse in terms of their educational levels
and class backgrounds, the majority of immigrants are war or political refugees who
came with few possessions and had to work to reestablish themselves. This differentiates
them educationally and economically from many of their East Asian counterparts, who
came generally for economic reasons. Many Vietnamese found employment in lowpaying jobs in the service and manufacturing industries or are self-employed in their
privately owned small businesses (Danico, 2004). This provides them limited
opportunity for upward socioeconomic mobility. The dreams of upward mobility are
transferred to their children, to which education is stressed as a ticket to upward class
mobility.
3
History of Immigration
The end of the Vietnam War in 1975 resulted in massive emigration of
Vietnamese fleeing from their country and immigrating to other countries, who would
accept them as political refugees. The United States became one of the many countries
that experienced a substantial influx of Vietnamese refugees after the Fall of Saigon, the
last day of the Vietnam War, on April 30, 1975.
Vietnamese refugees immigrated to the United States in four waves. The first
wave comprised of professionals, politicians, and high officers of the army with close ties
to the United States who had to leave immediately or face dire political consequences
from the new Communist regime in Vietnam. Most of those in this wave are established
and economically successful, with the later arrivals being primarily low-income refugees.
The second wave was between the years of 1978 and 1984 and consisted
primarily of those Vietnamese who fled to escape religious and political persecution.
These were the Vietnamese “boat people,” who fled either due to direct persecution or
because of the realization that economic opportunities were limited in the new political
order. These people risked their lives to flee in small boats to go to neighboring refugee
camps, where they waited months or years for other countries to allow them entry as
refugees.
The third wave was between 1985 and 1990 and consisted of the children of U.S.
servicemen and Vietnamese mothers. It also included the direct relatives of those already
in the United States. The fourth wave began in 1990 and continues into the 2000s, and
began when the U.S. government relaxed its stringent immigration requirements.
Political prisoners released from the Communist labor camps were then allowed entry.
4
LITERATURE REVIEW
Spatial Assimilation Theory
One of the most influential theories of ethnic residential locations and
demographic distribution across space is the spatial-assimilation model (Massey 1985).
Many new immigrants prefer to live where there are others from the same national origin.
Oftentimes, these migratory patterns are strongly influenced by social ties that set off a
chain of migration. As ethnic group members experience advancement in their socioeconomic status (SES) and culturally acculturate, they seek other neighborhoods with
better amenities and move out of the ethnic enclave, generally located in central cities
with lower neighborhood standards. Since better amenities are often located in
neighborhoods where the dominant group resides, spatial assimilation occurs as ethnic
minorities leave their enclave and integrate residentially with whites.
Alba, Logan, and Stults (2000) found that large-scale immigration modifies the
patterns predicted by the spatial assimilation model. They note that this impact is evident
in the racial/ethnic composition of neighborhoods, but especially so for neighborhoods
that are predominantly Asian and Hispanic. Looking at longitudinal patterns, the
percentage of non-Hispanic whites in these neighborhoods have declined.
Yet self-segregation also occurs, where individuals still choose to live with their
ethnic community well beyond the time of their initial arrival (White, Biddlecom, and
Guo 1993). Alba et al. (1999) discuss how contemporary immigration is different from
earlier immigration in that recent immigrants will settle directly in suburban areas,
bypassing the central city. Because of this, ethnic neighborhoods are emerging in the
suburbs. The spatial assimilation theory is based on a model where immigrants settle in
5
the central city first, then relocate to the suburbs as they experience upward social
mobility and acculturation. Moving to the suburbs and assimilation are linked in that
way. However, if recent immigrants are settling in the suburbs upon arrival, and if their
suburban neighborhood offers comparable amenities to mainstream neighborhoods, then
they really do not need to forsake the ethnic enclave for a better quality of life. If recent
immigrants can settle directly in suburbia with better neighborhood amenities such as
good schools and clean streets, then they do not need to undergo assimilation to achieve
access to those amenities as predicted by the spatial assimilation model.
Segregation from Whites
The literature has many studies that find lower levels of Asian-white segregation
and Hispanic-white segregation, compared to black-white segregation. Many of these
studies also show that there is an inverse relationship between the rise in socio-economic
status (SES) and segregation, except for blacks, who remain highly segregated from
whites, regardless of their SES level. Many of the studies explored segregation among
these groups in U.S. metropolitan areas.
Denton and Massey (1988) examined the residential segregation of blacks,
Hispanics, and Asians. They show that Hispanic and Asian segregation from whites
declines markedly from low to high SES, but this is not seen with blacks. Not only is
Hispanic-white segregation and Asian-white segregation among Hispanics and Asians of
low SES not as high as black-white segregation, but as Hispanics and Asians improve in
their SES, the levels of segregation decline substantially. This same dynamic is not
observed in black-white segregation.
6
A decade later, Massey and Fischer (1999) replicated and updated the study done
by Denton and Massey in 1988 to see if the same patterns still exist among blacks,
Hispanics, and Asians, using the 1990 Census instead of the 1980 Census. Ten years
later, they find that the segregation levels of blacks from whites is still substantially
higher than Hispanic-white segregation and Asian-white segregation, regardless of
income or place of residence (whether central city or suburb).
Iceland and Wilkes (2006) also looked at black-white segregation, Asian-white
segregation, and Hispanic-white segregation over the period from 1990 to 2000. They
find similar results to Denton and Massey (1988) and Massey and Fischer (1999). Higher
SES blacks, Asians, and Hispanics do experience less segregation from whites compared
to their lower SES counterparts, but the difference is much greater for Asians and
Hispanics than for blacks. Higher SES blacks continue to experience high levels of
segregation from whites.
Timberlake and Iceland (2007) looked at segregation over even a longer period,
from 1970 to 2000. They found that black-white segregation is declining over time, but
not as much as Hispanic-white and Asian-white segregation. They also found that some
Asians bypass the central city and settle in the suburbs on arrival. Because of this,
though Asians may not be living in poor neighborhoods, they may still be segregated
because of the tendency to settle in ethnically concentrated neighborhoods in the suburbs.
Johnston, Poulsen, and Forrest (2007) looked at segregation among whites,
Hispanics, blacks, and Asians in U.S. metropolitan areas from 1980 to 2000, and found
similar results as all the other studies. They found segregation to be lower with higher
SES Asians and Hispanics compared to their lower SES counterparts, but that this same
7
relationship was not found with black-white segregation/integration, regardless of the
SES of blacks. As blacks climb up the SES ladder, segregation is not ameliorated for
them to the degree that it is for other groups.
Teranishi (2004) examined specifically the ethnic enclaves of Hmong and
Vietnamese in California. He found that these groups were more impacted by
segregation compared to Asians as an aggregate group, emphasizing the need to
disaggregate populations to really understand a subgroup’s experience. Asians are a very
diverse group in terms of language, culture, immigration status, and socio-economic
status. Teranishi focused on segregation using data from high schools. He did not look
at the larger communities using Census data.
This study extends the literature by focusing on one suburban ethnic enclave of
Vietnamese in Westminster, and compares the levels of segregation for all major groups
living in the Westminster area, from 2000 to 2010. There is a dearth of research that
disaggregates Vietnamese from the larger umbrella Asian American group. Asians are
far from homogeneous (looking at linguistic differences alone will give an idea of the
diversity), but Southeast Asians in particular are unique from the Asian American
population because many arrived as refugees and are more recent arrivals. Vietnamese,
in particular, left their homeland to escape political persecution, and many arrived to the
U.S. as political refugees.
HYPOTHESES
In this paper, I want to explore whether the predictions of the traditional spatial
assimilation model would be consistent in explaining the integration of Vietnamese,
compared to Asians as an aggregate. Over time, will Vietnamese also experience less
8
segregation? Because Vietnamese are a fairly recent immigrant group, there has not been
much time for the predictions of the model to play out.
There are two hypotheses that I want to test:
1. Vietnamese-white segregation will be greater than any other major group in the
major study area. Since Vietnamese are a recent immigrant group, they will
prefer to live with members of their group until they acculturate, then assimilate,
seeking other neighborhoods.
2. Vietnamese-white segregation will diminish over time, from 2000 to 2010, as
immigrants assimilate and move out to surrounding cities.
DATA AND METHODS
To analyze the level of segregation between the major ethnic groups in
Westminster, I used Summary File 1 (SF1) from the 2000 U.S. Census and the 2010 U.S.
Census. I chose to look at Westminster because it is considered the “capital” of overseas
Vietnamese. “Little Saigon” in Westminster is home to the largest community of
Vietnamese outside Vietnam. I am including all the census tracts that are fully or
partially contained in the city of Westminster, because “Little Saigon” sprawls past the
city limits.
Many of the socio-economic indicators, such as income and education, were not
broken down by sub-Asian groups, so this made it difficult to examine assimilation of
Vietnamese by their SES. However, the advantage to using Census data is the
availability of population counts. Population counts for Vietnamese were provided by
census tract, and this enabled me to calculate “D” values (the index of dissimilarity) to
measure Vietnamese-white segregation.
9
All of the census tracts used in this analysis are either fully or partially contained
in the city of Westminster. The following 22 Census Tracts were used for this analysis:
889.01, 889.04, 889.05, 992.03, 992.04, 992.22, 992.23, 992.41, 996.01, 996.02, 996.03,
997.01, 997.02, 997.03, 998.01, 998.02, 998.03, 999.02, 999.03, 999.04, 999.05, and
999.06. The only census tracts that are fully contained in Westminster are 889.05,
992.22, 996.01, 998.02, 998.03, and 999.04. The rest are only partially contained in the
city.
To measure residential segregation, the index of dissimilarity between groups was
used. The index of dissimilarity is defined as
Dxy = (100) (0.5) [∑|(xi/X) – (yi/Y)|]
where xi is the number of members of minority group X in tract i, yi is the number of
members of group Y in tract i, and X and Y are the total number of each group residing in
the whole area of study. Dissimilarity ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents complete
integration and 100 represents complete segregation. The index of dissimilarity measures
the percentage of a group’s population that would have to move for each individual tract
or neighborhood to have the same percentage of that group as the whole area of study (in
other words, to achieve even distribution). The rule of thumb is that scores less than 30
indicate low segregation, scores between 30 and 60 indicate moderate segregation, scores
between 60 and 80 indicate high segregation, and scores 80 or over indicate
hypersegregation.
FINDINGS
10
The population in the study area did not experience much growth from 2000 to
2010. However, there were dramatic changes in the ethnic composition of the area, as
detailed in the table below.
Table 1. Population Count in the 22 Census Tracts Fully or Partially
Contained in Westminster, Orange County, CA, 2000 and 2010
Race/Ethnicity
2000
2010
% Change
Asian Alone
33,054
41,799
26.5
Vietnamese
26,109
36,058
38.1
Other Asian
6,945
5,741
-0.2
Hispanic/Latino
19,138
21,176
10.6
White
31,960
22,972
-28.1
All Other
4,053
3,754
-0.1
Total
88,205
89,701
1.7
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, Summary File 1 (SF1), Tables
PCT005 and P004; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, SF1, Tables PCT5
and P9.
From 2000 to 2010, growth in the census tracts has been modest, with just a 1.7%
increase in the population count. Much of the change was in the ethnic composition of
this area. The Vietnamese population in this area grew by 38.1%, and the
Hispanic/Latino population grew by 10.6%. Conversely, the percentage of whites in this
area decreased by 28.1%. So though population growth was small from 2000 to 2010 (a
growth of only 1,496 individuals), the change in the ethnic composition has been
dramatic, with a large increase in the Vietnamese population accompanied by a sharp
decline of whites in the area.
The previous table examined the growth of each group in the study area. The next
two figures will compare the change in the ethnic composition of all major groups in the
area in terms of the percent each group comprised of the total population of the area.
11
Figure 1: Ethnic Composition in the 22 Census
Tracts Fully or Patially Contained in Westminster,
CA in 2000
Other
4%
Vietnamese
30%
White
36%
Hispanic/Latino
22%
Other Asian
8%
In 2000, the largest group in the Westminster area was whites, comprising 36% of
the total population in the area. The second largest group was Vietnamese, who made up
30% of the total population in 2000. Hispanics/Latinos also made up a sizable
percentage of the population, making up 22% of the total population of the Westminster
area.
12
Figure 2: Ethnic Composition in the 22 Census
Tracts Fully or Partially Contained in
Westminster, CA in 2010
Other
4%
White
26%
Vietnamese
40%
Hispanic/Latino
24%
Other Asian
6%
By 2010, Vietnamese have become the largest group in the area, making up 40%
of the total population. Whites now are the second largest group in the area, making up
26% of the population. Hispanics/Latinos still make up a sizable percentage of the
population, comprising 24% of the population.
Table 2. Segregation from Whites in the 22 Census Tracts Fully or Partially
Contained in Westminster, Orange County, CA, 2000 and 2010
Race/Ethnicity
2000
2010
Change
Asian Alone
31.4
35.1
3.7
Vietnamese
35.0
38.1
3.1
Other Asian
24.8
17.9
-6.9
Hispanic/Latino
30.7
32.6
1.9
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, Summary File 1 (SF1), Tables
PCT005 and P004; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, SF1, Tables PCT5
and P9.
For Vietnamese and Hispanics/Latinos, there is moderate segregation from
whites. For non-Vietnamese Asians, segregation is low, and has even decreased from
13
2000 to 2010. Segregation of Vietnamese and Hispanics/Latinos from whites has
increased from 2000 to 2010. Vietnamese are also moderately segregated from
Hispanics/Latinos in these census tracts, with D of 31.5 in 2000 and increasingly to 34.6
in 2010.
DISCUSSION
Because Vietnamese are a fairly new immigrant group, they may choose to live in
the ethnic enclave, preferring to avoid out-groups. Nativity affects the spatial
assimilation of immigrant groups. New immigrants generally want to live among their
own group and only seek mainstream neighborhoods after they become more
comfortable, both financially and culturally. However, if the ethnic neighborhood
provides similar amenities to more mainstream neighborhoods, immigrants may choose
to remain in the “ethnic community.”
The results of this study confirmed the first hypothesis, that Vietnamese-white
segregation will be the highest, compared to the segregation of other major groups in the
area from whites. The spatial assimilation model predicts that new immigrants settle in
the ethnic enclave first before seeking more mainstream neighborhoods as they
acculturate and experience upward social mobility. Vietnamese are a new immigrant
group, and so it is no surprise that their levels of segregation will be higher than
Hispanics/Latinos and other Asians. Because they are recent arrivals, it will take some
time to see if the predictions of the spatial assimilation model will play out.
The second hypothesis, that segregation will decrease from 2000 to 2010 as
immigrants assimilate, was not supported. In fact, segregation from whites increased for
Vietnamese. Because “Little Saigon” is an ethnic enclave in a suburban area, it is
14
possible that the predictions of spatial assimilation theory may not play out here,
especially since “Little Saigon” has developed both economically and politically and
provide much of the positive neighborhood amenities already (clean streets, good
schools) that more mainstream neighborhoods offer. Consequently, there is little reason
or motivation to move out of the ethnic enclave to seek better amenities, when the
amenities already existing in this ethnic enclave are comparable.
The data used for this report allowed me to look at segregation, population
growth/decline, and changes in ethnic composition, but I could not explain the reasons
for the sharp decline in the number of whites. Is the reason for white emigration due to
the increasing size and economic growth of the Vietnamese community, threatening the
dominant group hierarchy? Or is it a case of “white flight,” where the growth in the
Vietnamese population has hit the “tipping point” in the contact threshold for whites, in
which they begin to leave? Further research is necessarily to answer these questions.
15
REFERENCES
Alba, Richard D., John R. Logan, and Brian J. Stults. 2000. “The Changing
Neighborhood Contexts of the Immigrant Metropolis.” Social Forces 79(2):587621.
Alba, Richard D., John R. Logan, Brian J. Stults, Gilbert Marzan, and Wenquan Zhang.
1999. “Immigrant Groups in the Suburbs: A Reexamination of Suburbanization
and Spatial Assimilation.” American Sociological Review 64(3):446-460.
Danico, Mary Yu. (2004). “The Formation of Post-Suburban Communities: Koreatown
and Little Saigon, Orange County.” The International Journal of Sociology and
Social Policy 24(7/8):15-45.
Denton, Nancy A., and Douglas S. Massey. 1988. “Residential Segregation of Blacks,
Hispanics, and Asians by Socioeconomic Status and Generation.” Social Science
Quarterly 69(4):797-817.
Iceland, John, and Rima Wilkes. 2006. “Does Socioeconomic Status Matter? Race, Class,
and Residential Segregation.” Social Problems 53(2):248-273.
Johnston, Ron, Michael Poulsen, and James Forrest. 2007. “Ethnic and Racial
Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas, 1980-2000: The Dimensions of
Segregation Revisited.” Urban Affairs Review 42(4):479-504.
Massey, Douglas S. 1985. “Ethnic Residential Segregation: A Theoretical Synthesis and
Empirical Review.” Sociology and Social Research 69:315-50.
Massey, Douglas S., and Mary J. Fischer. 1999. “Does Rising Income Bring Integration?
New Results for Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in 1990.” Social Science Research
28:316-326.
16
Teranishi, Robert T. 2004. “Yellow and Brown: Emerging Asian American Immigrant
Populations and Residential Segregation.” Equity and Excellence in Education
37:255-263.
Timberlake, Jeffrey M., and John Iceland. 2007. “Change in Racial and Ethnic
Residential Inequality in American Cities, 1970-2000.” City and Community
6:335-365.
White, Michael J., Ann E. Biddlecom, and Shenyang Guo. 1993. “Immigration,
Naturalization, and Residential Assimilation among Asian Americans in 1980.”
Social Forces 72(1):93-117.
17