American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass
Author(s): Douglas S. Massey
Source: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 96, No. 2 (Sep., 1990), pp. 329-357
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2781105
Accessed: 23-09-2015 21:48 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of
Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
American Apartheid: Segregation and the
Making of the Underclass'
Douglas S. Massey
Universityof Chicago
This articlearguesthatracialsegregation
is crucialto explainingthe
emergenceof the urban underclassduringthe 1970s. A stronginteractionbetweenrisingratesofpovertyand highlevelsofresidential segregationexplains where, why, and in which groups the
underclassarose. This argumentis developedwithsimulationsthat
replicate the economic conditionsobserved among blacks and
whitesin metropolitan
areas duringthe 1970sbut assumedifferent
conditionsof racial and class segregation.These data show how a
simpleincreasein the rate of minority
povertyleads to a dramatic
risein theconcentration
ofpovertywhenit occurswithina racially
segregatedcity. Increases in povertyconcentrationare, in turn,
associated with otherchanges in the socioeconomiccharacterof
neighborhoods,transforming
them into physicallydeteriorated
areas of high crime,poor schools, and excessivemortalitywhere
welfare-dependent,
female-headedfamiliesare the norm. Thus,
will fail
policiesto solve the socioeconomicproblemsof minorities
unlesstheyare accompaniedbymeasuresforovercomingthedisadvantagescaused byracial discrimination
and prejudicein thehousing market.
By anymeasure,thecharacterofAmericanpovertychangedsignificantly
duringthe 1970s. The poor became poorerrelativeto therestof society,
and incomeinequalityincreased(Levy 1987). Povertybecamemorepersistentas spells increased in frequencyand durationamong families
(Bane and Ellwood 1986; Corcoranet al. 1985; McLanahan, Garfinkel,
and Watson 1988). Povertyalso became more geographicallyconcentratedwithininner-city
neighborhoods
(Bane and Jargowsky1988;Massey and Eggers 1990). These trendswere especiallyacute forblacks and
l This researchwas supportedby NICHD grantHD-24041,whosecontribution
is
gratefully
acknowledged.
I also thankNancyA. Dentonforpreparing
theempirical
regressions
used in thisanalysis.Requestsforreprints
shouldbe sentto Douglas S.
Massey,PopulationResearchCenter,NORC/University
ofChicago,1155East 60th
Street,Chicago,fllinois60637.
?) 1990by The University
of Chicago.All rightsreserved.
.50
0002-9602/91/9602-0003$01
AJS Volume 96 Number2 (September1990): 329-57
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
329
AmericanJournalof Sociology
PuertoRicans, promptingsomeobserversto posittheexistenceofa new,
families(Glaspoor minority
spatiallyisolatedunderclassof persistently
gow 1981; Auletta 1982).
WilliamJ. Wilson(1987) has proposeda theoryto explaintheapparent
rise of thisminorityunderclass.He arguesthatpowerfuleconomicand
of theinnercity
the social environment
demographicforcestransformed
the
suburbanization
of
duringthe 1970s. The declineof manufacturing,
of
the
service
sector
eliminated
blue-collaremployment,and the rise
manywell-payingjobs forunskilledminoritiesand reducedthe pool of
the strengthof the family,inmarriageablemen, therebyundermining
residentsfrom
creasingtherateof poverty,and isolatingmanyinner-city
accessible,middle-classoccupations.At the same time,theexpansionof
civil rightsgeneratednew opportunitiesfor middle-classblacks, who
movedout oftheghettoin largenumbers,leavingbehindan isolatedand
resources,and
verypoor minoritycommunitywithoutthe institutions,
values necessaryforsuccessin modernsociety(Wilson1987,pp. 55-58).
My purposein thisarticleis to supplementWilson'stheoreticalarguas a keyconditioning
variable
mentbyintroducing
residentialsegregation
in thesocial transformation
of theghettoand to illustratethecrucialrole
itplaysin concentrating
povertyand creatingtheunderclass.I agreewith
has increasedin
Wilson's main argument-that povertyconcentration
I disagree,howU.S. cities,withperniciousconsequencesforminorities.
was broughtabout by
ever, withhis hypothesisthatthistransformation
membersfromthe ghettoand with
the exodus of middle-classminority
in and of itself,was responsihis argumentthatindustrialrestructuring,
ble for concentratingurban poverty.While these processesmay have
neitherwas necessaryforitscreation.
exacerbatedpovertyconcentration,
In the absence of racial segregation,the economicdislocationsof the
povertyor led to theemer1970swould nothave producedconcentrated
genceof a sociallyand spatiallyisolatedunderclass.
Althoughsome middle-classblacks were spatiallymobileduringthe
withthe view thattheyleftthe
1970s, empiricalresultsare inconsistent
in largeurban
ghettoin largenumbers.First,levelsof racial segregation
areas are highand show littlesignof decline(Massey and Denton 1987,
1988). Second, as educationand incomerise,thedegreeofblack segregationdoes notfall(Dentonand Massey 1988a). Third,althoughthedegree
of segregationbetweenpoor and richblacksincreasedslightlyduringthe
1970s, it is stilllowerthan that observedbetweenthe poor and richof
otherminoritygroups(Massey and Eggers 1990). Finally,multivariate
modelsshow thatrecentchangesin thepropensity
forupper-and lowerclass blacks to live in different
are unrelatedto levelsand
neighborhoods
trendsin black povertyconcentration
(Massey and Eggers 1990).
In contrast,empiricalresearchconfirms
Wilson'shypothesisthatpov330
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanApartheid
increaseddramaticallyduringthe 1970s,particularly
ertyconcentration
forblacks outsidetheWest and Hispanics in theNortheast(Massey and
Eggers 1990). Instead of being caused by the departureof middle-class
are explainedstatisblacksfromtheghetto,however,thesedevelopments
tically by a stronginteractionbetween the level of segregationand
changesin the structureof the incomedistribution.Groupsthatexperienced both a highpovertyrate and a highdegreeof residentialsegregation(e.g., blacksand PuertoRicans) showedthehighestlevelsofpoverty
rosemostdramatand thedegreeofpovertyconcentration
concentration,
icallyin urban areas wherea sharpdownwardshiftin theincomedistri(e.g., Chicago and
butionoccurredin a highlysegregatedenvironment
New York).
In this articleI explicatethese statisticalfindingsand illustratethe
mechanismby whichsegregationacts to concentrate
poverty.I showthat
a sharp increasein a group'spovertyrate inevitablyproducesconcentratedpovertywhen it occursunderconditionsof highsegregation-an
outcome that occurs withoutthe movementof middle-classminority
membersfromthe ghetto.I thenillustratehow an increasein poverty
the social and economicenvironment
radicallytransforms
concentration
changesthat
ofpoorneighborhoods
to instigatea seriesofself-reinforcing
lead to the creationof underclasscommunities.
HOW SEGREGATION CONCENTRATES POVERTY
of
In orderto demonstratethe effectof segregationon the concentration
poverty,I constructa hypotheticalcity of 128,000 people distributed
among 16 equal-sized neighborhoodsof 8,000 personseach (see fig. 1).
proportion
The citycontains32,000 blacks and 96,000whites:a minority
of 25%. The black populationis poorer,on average, than the white
populationand has a povertyrate of 20%, comparedwithonly10% for
whites.This idealizedpictureapproximatesthesituationin manyAmerican citiescirca 1970. In Chicago, forinstance,blacksconstituted17% of
the metropolitanpopulationand had a povertyrate of 20%, compared
area, blacks
with6% forwhites;likewise,in theNew York metropolitan
constituted17% of thepopulationand theirpovertyratewas 21%, compared with 10% forwhites(Massey and Eggers 1990). For themoment,
we assume thereis no class segregationbetweenpoorand nonpoormembers of eitherracial group.
Figure 1 shows what happens to the degreeof povertyconcentration
levels of racial segregation
experiencedby blacks and whitesat different
whengrouppovertyratesand sizes are held constant.The figuredepicts
fourhypothetical
citiesthatare identicalexceptforthedegreeofresidential segregationtheyimpose on blacks. Segregationlevels range from
331
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanJournalof Sociology
CITY 1: NO RACIAL SEGREGATION
b =2000
wi=6000
b =2000
w =6000
b,=2000 b =2000
wiv=6000 w =6000
3
41
b,=2000
w,=6000
b= 2000
w,=6000
b= 2000
w,=6000
b= 2000
wi=6000
9
b= 2000
wi=6000
10
b=2000
=
1v 6000
13
b=2000
=
1v 6000
14
1
5
2
6
b,=O
b,=O
wi= 8000 wi= 8000
b,=O
wi=8000
b,=0
b= 2000
w,=6000
b =2666
w,=5334
b1=2666
w,= 5334
b= 2666
w,=5334
b= 2666
w,=5334
b= 2000
w =6000
11
b,=2000
w =6000
12
b =2666 b1=2666
wi= 5334 wi= 5334
9
10
b =2666
wi=5334
11
b,= 2666
w =5334
12
b=2000
w =6000
15
b=2000
w =6000
16
b 2666
w= wi=
13
7
8
Level ofBlack Segregation(D.):
0.000
NeighborhoodPovertyforAve. Black: 0.125
NeighborhoodPovertyforAve. White: 0.125
CITY 3: HIGH RACIAL SEGREGATION
b1=0
b1=0
b1=0
w,=8000 w,=8000 w,=800
1
2
CITY 2: LOW RACIAL SEGREGATION
3
b1=0
w==8000
4
2
5
6
b,= 2666
5=334
14
3
7
wi=8000
4
8
b-=2666 b1=2666
wv= 5334 wi= 5334
15
16
Level ofBlack Segregation(D.):
0.333
NeighborhoodPovertyforAve. Black: 0.133
NeighborhoodPovertyforAve. White: 0.122
CITY 4: COMPLETE RACIAL SEGREGATION
b1=0
b1=0
b1=0
b1=0
w =8000 wi= 8000 w =8000 w= 8000
3
4
1
2
b1=0
b1=0
b1=0
b1=0
w,=8000 w~=8000 w1=8000 w,=8000
7
6
8
5
b1=0
b1=0
b1=0
b1=0
w1=8000 w1=8000 w1=8000 w1=8000
7
8
~~~~5 6
b,=4000
w=4000
9
b1=4000 b1=4000
wi= 4000 wi=4000
11
12
b1=0
w =8000
9
b1=0
w =8000
10
b1=0
w =8000
11
b1=0
wi= 8000
12
b,=4000 b,=4000 b,=4000 b,=4000
w1=4000 w1=4000 wi=4000 wi=4000
' 16
14
13
1
b1=8000
Iwv=O
13
b1=8000
w=
14
b,= 8000
wl=O
15
b,= 8000
w1=0
16
b1=4000
wi= 4000
10
0.667
Level ofBlack Segregation(D.):
NeighborhoodPovertyforAve. Black: 0.150
NeighborhoodPovertyforAve. White: 0.117
1.000
Level ofBlack Segregation(D.):
NeighborhoodPovertyforAve. Black: 0.200
NeighborhoodPovertyforAve. White: 0.100
in threehyFIG. 1.-Effect of povertysegregationon povertyconcentration
32,000 blacks, and 96,000 whites
potheticalcitiescontaining16 neighborhoods,
withrespectivepovertyratesof 20% and 10%.
zero, throughlow and high levels, to completeseparationbetweenthe
races.
wheretworacialgroupsare
City1 illustratesthecase ofno segregation,
has exactly
each
and
the
distributed
city
neighborhood
evenly
throughout
6,000 whites(wi) and 2,000 blacks (bi). In thiscase, all neighborhoods
replicatetheracial compositionofthecityas a whole,so each blacklives
332
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanApartheid
in an area thatis 25% black and 75% white.Blacks and whitesexperience the same neighborhoodpovertyrate, .125, which is a weighted
averageof theoverallblack and whiterates.Withno residentialsegregabothraces experiencethesame geographicconcentration
tion,therefore,
of poverty.
City 2 illustrateswhat happens to the level of povertyconcentration
In thishypothetical
whenblacks are excludedfromsomeneighborhoods.
city,blacks are barredfromthefournorthernmost
neighborhoods,
which
are set offfromthe restof the cityby a double line runningfromeast to
west. In this and the remainingexamples,neighborhoodsthat exclude
blacks are called "whiteareas" and thosethataccept blacks are labeled
"black areas," even thoughthelattermaycontainsomewhiteresidents.I
in theirrespectiveareas,
assume thatracial groupsare evenlydistributed
so thateach ofthecity'swhiteareas contains8,000 whitesand no blacks,
and each of its black areas contains2,666 blacks and 5,334 whites.
The mostcommonmeasureofracial segregation
is theindexofdissimilarity(D), which statesthe proportionof minority
memberswho would
have to moveto achievean even settlement
pattern(as in City1). Barring
blacks fromfourneighborhoods(City 2) yieldsa dissimilarity
index of
.333. The impositionofeven thislow levelofsegregation
createsa disparityin the average level of neighborhoodpovertyexperiencedby blacks
and whites. Each black area is composed of one-thirdblacks (2,666/
8,000) and two-thirdswhites(5,334/8,000),givinga totalneighborhood
povertyrate of (.333 x .20) + (.667 x .10) = .133 forblack neighborhoods. But whereasall blacks experiencethishigherpovertyrate(comof whitesdo so.
pared with .125 in an integratedcity),onlytwo-thirds
The one-third
ofwhites(32,000)who livein all-whiteareas experiencethe
whitepovertyrateof .100, yieldingan averageneighborhood
povertyrate
forwhitesof (.333 x .10) + (.667 x .133) = .122 (see fig.1, City2).
When racial segregationis imposed,therefore,
some whitesare better
off,whereasall blacks are worseoff.One-thirdof thewhitesare able to
isolate themselvesfromthe higherrates of black povertyand insulate
themselvesfromthe social problemsassociatedwithincomedeprivation
(e.g., crime,low housingvalues, unstablefamilies,delinquency,drug
use, etc.). Throughracial segregation,the average residentialenvironmentof whitesimprovesand theaverageenvironment
ofblacks deteriorates.
Cites3 and 4 imposesuccessivelyhigherlevelsofsegregation
byreducing the numberof black areas to eight(yieldinga D of .667) and four
(givinga D of 1.0), respectively.As segregationincreases,the level of
povertyconcentrationamong blacks steadilyrises while that among
whitessteadilyfalls.In City3, theneighborhood
povertyrateforblacks
reaches. 150 (each black neighborhood
is halfblack and halfwhite,yield333
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanJournalof Sociology
ing a weightedaverage splitbetweenthe black and whiteratesof .100
and .200). Meanwhile,the average povertyratein whiteneighborhoods
falls to .117 because two-thirdsof the whites(64,000 people) are now
insulatedfromthe higherratesof black poverty.When the dissimilarity
indexreaches 1.0 (City4), all whitesexperiencethewhitepovertyrateof
.100 and all blacks experiencethe black povertyrate of .200, and their
respectivepovertyconcentrations
reach theirmaximumdivergence.
This result,however,assumes that thereis no segregationby social
class withinracial groups;thatis, poor blacks and whitesare assumedto
In reality,
be evenlydistributedamong black and whiteneighborhoods.
however,thereare rich and poor neighborhoodsas well as black and
whiteones. Figure 2 therefore
repeatsthe analysisunderthe morerealistic assumptionof class segregation.For each of the fourhypothetical
cities,I createa "right"and a "wrong"side of the tracksdrawinga line
runningnorth-south
throughthecenteroftown.Poorpeopleare excluded
fromall neighborhoodseast of this line, and althoughsome nonpoor
people live west of the line, all poor people do so. For simplicity,in
segmentsof the city definedby race and class, I assume that blacks,
whites,poor, and nonpoorare evenlydistributed.
to a
City1 offigure2 illustratestheeffectofaddingincomesegregation
raciallyintegratedresidentialenvironment.The black povertyrate of
.200 applied to the black populationof 32,000 impliesthe existenceof
6,400 poor blacks who are distributed
evenlythroughout
theeightneighborhoodswest of the class boundary,yielding800 poor blacks per area
(pbi). Likewise, a povertyrate of .100 in a populationof 96,000 whites
implies 9,600 poor whites,giving 1,200 per neighborhoodwest of the
tracks(pwi). The total populationforeach neighborhoodis stillthatof
figure1 (2,000 blacksand 6,000 whites),meaningthereare 1,200nonpoor
blacks and 4,800 nonpoorwhitesin each poorneighborhood.On therich
side of town, of course,thereare no poor people in any neighborhood.
This configuration
indexof .625
givesa poorversusnonpoordissimilarity
forblacks and .555 forwhites,figureslyingtowardtheupperend of the
continuumtypicallyobserved for class segregation,but withinestablishedranges(Massey and Eggers 1990).
The impositionofclass segregationdoes notchangetheaveragelevelof
neighborhoodpovertyexperiencedby blacks and whites.As is shownin
City 1 of figure2, it is .125 forbothgroups,just as in figure1. But this
overall index is deceivingbecause it representsa weightedaverage of
povertyratesexperiencedby people in poor and nonpoorneighborhoods.
On the nonpoor side of town, the neighborhoodpovertyrate is by
definition
0, whereason the poor side it is .250. Since thereis no racial
segregation,however,poor blacks and poor whitessharethisdisadvantage equally; both experiencea high concentration
of poverty,whereas
334
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanApartheid
CITY 1: NO RACIAL SEGREGATION
CITY 2: LOW RACIAL SEGREGATION
pb,=800 pb,=800 pb,=0
pwA=1200pwA=1200pw,=0
1
2
3
pb,= 0
pw,=0
4
pb,=0
pb,=0
pb,=0
pw=1200 pw=1200 pw=0
1
2
3
pb,= O
pw,=0
4
pb=800 pb=800 pb=0
pw= 1200 p ,1200 pw w0
7
6
5
pbl=0
pw=0
8
pb=1066 pb=1066 pb -0
pw,=1200 pG1200 pw=0
7
5
6
pbl=0
pw=0
8
pb=800 pb=800 pb=0
pw= 1200 pw= 1200 pw= 0
11
9
10
pbl=0
pw,=0
12
pb=1066 pb=1066 pbl= 0
pw= 1200 pw= 1200 pw,=0
11
9
10
pbl=0
pw,=0
12
pb=800 pb=800 pbl=0
pw=1200 pw=1200 pw,=0
14
13
15
pbl=0
pw,=0
16
pb=1066 pbl 1066 pbl= 0
pw=1200 pw=1200 pw,=0
15
13
14
pbl= 0
pw,=0
16
0.625
LevelofClassSegregation
forBlacks:
0.125
Neighborhood
Poverty
forAve.Black:
Neighborhood
Poverty
forAve.PoorBlack: 0.250
forBlacks:
0.625
LevelofClassSegregation
forAve.Black:
0.142
Neighborhood
Poverty
forAve.PoorBlack: 0.283
Neighborhood
Poverty
0.555
LevelofClassSegregation
forWhites:
0.125
Neighborhood
Poverty
forAve.White:
Neighborhood
Poverty
forAve.PoorWhite: 0.250
forWhites:
0.555
LevelofClassSegregation
forAve.White:
0.119
Neighborhood
Poverty
forAve.PoorWhite: 0.250
Neighborhood
Poverty
CITY 3: HIGH RACIAL SEGREGATION
CITY 4: COMPLETE RACIAL SEGREGATION
pb =0
pb=0
pbl 0
pw, 1200 pw= 1200 pw=0
1
2
3
pb=0
pw=0
4
pb=0
pb=0
pbl= 0
pw,=1600 pw=1600 pw=0
1
2
3
pb= 0
pw=0
4
pb=0
pb=0
pb=0
pw= 1200 pwG1200 pw,=O
5
6
7
pbl= 0
pw,=O
8
pb=0
pb=0
pb=0
pw= 1600 pw=1600 pw=0
7
5
6
pbl= 0
pw,=0
8
pb=1600 pb=1600 pb=0
pw=1200 pw=1200 pw= 0
11
9
10
pbl= 0
pw,=0
12
pb=0
pb=0
pbl 0
pw=1600 pw=1600 pw,=0
11
9
10
pbl= 0
pw,=0
12
pb=1600 pb=1600 pbl= 0
pw=1200 pw=1200 pw,=0
14
13
15
pbl= 0
pw,=0
16
pbl= 3200 pbl= 3200 pbl= 0
pw,=0
pw,=0
pw,=0
14
13
15
pbl= 0
pw,=0
16
0.625
LevelofClassSegregation
forBlacks:
0.175
Neighborhood
Poverty
forAve.Black:
Neighborhood
Poverty
forAve.PoorBlack: 0.350
forBlacks:
0.625
LevelofClassSegregation
forAve.Black:
0.200
Neighborhood
Poverty
forAve.PoorBlack: 0.400
Neighborhood
Poverty
0.555
LevelofClassSegregation
forWhites:
0.108
Neighborhood
Poverty
forAve.White:
Neighborhood
Poverty
forAve.PoorWhite:0.250
forWhites:
0.555
LevelofClassSegregation
forAve.White:
0.100
Neighborhood
Poverty
forAve.PoorWhite: 0.200
Neighborhood
Poverty
in threehypothetical
FIG. 2.-Effect of segregationon povertyconcentration
cities,assumingclass segregationwithinracial groups.
wealthierblacks and whiteson the nonpoorside of townexperienceno
and
povertyat all. Since halfof each grouplives in poor neighborhoods
half lives in nonpoorneighborhoods,the overall neighborhoodpoverty
rate is .125 forboth races.
in
Cities2-4 (fig.2) illustratetheeffectofincreasingracialsegregation
of the cityby class as
a citydivided along class lines. The segmentation
335
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanJournalof Sociology
well as race createsfourtypesof neighborhoods:
poor black areas, poor
white areas, "rich" (nonpoor)black areas, and "rich" (nonpoor)white
areas. Neighborhoods1 and 2 representpoor whiteneighborhoods;
they
are composed of 1,200 poor whites and 6,800 nonpoorwhites,for a
povertyrate of .150. Neighborhoods3 and 4 are richwhiteareas with
povertyratesof 0. Neighborhoods5-6, 9-10, and 13-14 (to thewestof
the class line) are poor black neighborhoods
thatcontainall poor blacks
and mostpoor whites.The 6,400 poor blacks are spreadevenlythroughout the six neighborhoods,yielding1,066 personsper area, and when
added to the 1,200poorwhites,theygivea totalpovertyrateof .283, that
is, (1,066 + 1,200)/8,000.In richblack areas, as in richwhiteareas, the
povertyrate is 0.
The impositionof racial segregationon a residentialstructurethatis
also segregatedby class worksto thedetriment
of poorblacksand to the
benefitof poor whites.Whereasall poorblacks are confinedto neighborhoodswitha highpovertyrateof .283, somepoorwhites(inthiscase onequarter of them) live in raciallyhomogeneousneighborhoodsthat are
insulatedfromthe greaterprevalenceof povertyamongblacks, so their
1 and 2 in City2, fig.2). This
povertyrateis only. 150 (see neighborhoods
lower rate of povertyis exactlybalanced by the higherrate of poverty
experiencedby whiteslivingin poor black neighborhoods,
however,so
the totalneighborhoodpovertyrateexperiencedby poor whitesremains
unchangedat .250, thatis, (.25 x .150) + (.75 x .283) = .250.
The povertyrate that all whites(not just poor ones) experienceis a
weightedaverageofthepovertyratesprevailingin thefourneighborhood
witha
types.In City2,16.7% of whiteslive in richwhiteneighborhoods
povertyrate of 0, 16.7% live in poor whiteareas witha povertyrate of
.150, one-thirdlive in poor black neighborhoods
witha povertyrate of
.283, and one-third
live in richblack areas withno poorat all, yieldingan
overallrateof .119 (see fig.2). The calculationforblacksis simpler:half
live in richblack neighborhoods
wherethepovertyrateis 0 and halflive
in poor black neighborhoods
wheretherateis .283, givingan overallrate
of .142. As before,throughtheimpositionofracialsegregation,
theaverage povertyrateexperiencedby blacks movesup whilethatexperienced
by whitesgoes down.
Similarcomputationsperformed
on Cities3 and 4 showthatthesize of
the black-whitedisparityincreasesas racial segregationrises. With a
racial dissimilarityindex of .667 (City 3, fig. 2), blacks experiencean
averageneighborhood
povertyrateof . 175 comparedwitha figureof. 108
forwhites;and poor blacks experiencea neighborhoodpovertyrate of
.350 relativeto .250 forpoor whites.The latterfigures,moreover,obscure the fact that now half of all poor whiteslive in an area with a
with
povertyrateof . 150, whereasall poor blackslive in a neighborhood
336
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanApartheid
a povertyrate of .350. With completeracial segregation,of course,the
contrastbetweenblacks and whitesreachesits maximum.In thiscase,
theaverage povertyrateexperiencedby all whitestakentogetheris .100
and that by poor whitesis .200, whereas poor blacks are confinedto
neighborhoods
witha povertyrateof .400, and blacksas a wholeexperience a povertyrate of .200.
ECONOMIC DISLOCATION IN A SEGREGATED ENVIRONMENT
If racial segregationconcentratespovertyin space, it also focusesand
exacerbatesany changein the economicstatusof minority
groups.In a
segregatedenvironment,any exogenouseconomicshock that causes a
downwardshiftin thedistribution
ofminority
income(e.g., theclosingof
factories,the mechanizationof production,the suburbanizationof employment)will notonlybringabout an increasein thepovertyrateforthe
groupas a whole; it will also cause an increasein thegeographicconcentrationof poverty.This geographicintensification
of povertyoccursbecause the additionalpovertycreatedby the exogenousshock is spread
unevenlyover the metropolitanarea. In a raciallysegregatedcity,any
increasein povertyis confinedto a small numberof minority
neighborhoods; the greaterthe segregation,the smallerthe numberof neighborhoods absorbingthe shock,and themoreseveretheresultingconcentrationof poverty.If class segregationis also imposed,thenthe additional
povertyis not only restrictedto minorityneighborhoods,it is confined
primarilyto poor minorityneighborhoods.
In short, when shiftsin the distributionof minorityincome occur
withina raciallysegregatedenvironment,
theyhave the powerto transform,veryrapidlyand dramatically,thesocioeconomicenvironment
experiencedby poor minorityfamilies.In thissection,I demonstrate
how
racial segregationunderminestheeconomicbase ofminority
communities
duringperiodsof economicdislocation.I use thehypothetical
data from
figures1 and 2 to documentthe effectof a 50% increasein the rate of
black povertyfrom.200 to .300, withthewhiterateheld constant.This
patternof changein thedistribution
ofwhiteand black incomesparallels
quite closelywhat happenedin manyU.S. urbanareas duringthe 1970s.
In Chicago, for example, the proportionof black familiesin poverty
increasedfrom.200 in 1970 to .283 in 1980,whiletheproportion
ofpoor
whitefamiliesremainedconstantat about .060; in New York, the povertyrate amongwhitefamilieswas stableat about .100, whiletheblack
ratewentfrom.214 to .296, and theHispanicrategrewfrom.317 to .370
(Massey and Eggers 1990).
The analysisis summarizedin table 1, whichshowstheconcentration
of povertyin black and white neighborhoodsbeforeand afterthe as337
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
O. 1v~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i
i n #)
n
Nt
m~~~~~~C
oC
S
C N e m
?
14
0
~~~~~~~o
1
N
No
? ?q
st
0
?q
zz
e4.
.E&
xk2iS
44~~3
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
.
8
l)
.
.
.
.
O O) O
in) 00 in
ll
.
O
11
.l
O
.
.
oO
0
.
.
Oo C
in n In
0
i.
.
oUl) in
.
.
Ul) _
o
.
.
.
0 0 C)
0~~~~~~
0
.2
0~~
b
.
.
.) $
.
.
b .
l
a a. .
:::
...4.
..
.
b.D
o
o
.
s..
.
to
.L
>
0
:.
? 3 3
En*:
t
aQ=S
*m4
Cd
EMEX
cd8:QWB=
tz
.
.
.d
g
bo
o;
8
*3 3 3 3
E
:
>
:
S
40~~33
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanJournalof Sociology
sumedincomeshift,undervaryingconditionsofclass and racialsegregation. (Data on the hypotheticalcities fromwhich the table was constructedwill be senton request.)The threeleft-handcolumnsshow how
thedownwardshiftin black incomesaffectsthedegreeofpovertyconcentrationwhen thereis no class segregation;the threeright-hand
columns
indicatethe effectof the shiftin incomeswhen class segregationis also
imposed.
First considerthe case of no class segregation.If blacks were completelyintegrated,a sharprisein theirpovertyratewould be harmfulto
the well-beingof thegroupas a whole,but it would notgreatlyalterthe
in whichtheylive. The averagerateof povneighborhoodenvironment
ertyto which blacks are exposed would increasefrom.125 to .150, an
absoluteincrementof .025 and a relativeincreaseof 20%. It is doubtful
whetheran increaseofthismagnitudewouldbe particularly
noticeableto
people livingin the neighborhood;since blacks and whitesoccupythe
same neighborhoods,thisrelativelysmall incrementin povertyconcentrationwould be experiencedequally by bothgroups.
As racial segregationrises,however,the downwardshiftin thedistributionof black incomesis confinedincreasingly
to black neighborhoods,
and thechangein theneighborhood
environment
becomesmoredramatic
forblacks and less noticeableforwhites.Witha low level of segregation
(D = .333), thelevel of black povertyconcentration
increasesfrom.133
to .167 as a resultof the incomeshift(an incrementof .024, or 26%),
forwhitesgoes from.122 to
whereastheextentof povertyconcentration
.144 (an increment
ofonly.022, or 18%). Underconditionsofhighsegregation (D = .667), the disparitybetweenblacks and whiteswidensblack povertyconcentrationgrows by 33%, as a resultof the income
increasesby
shift,to reach .200; whereas whitepovertyconcentration
only14% to reach .133. Whenthetwo groupsare completely
segregated,
of course,all of theincreasein black povertyis absorbedby black neighborhoods,so thattheirpovertyconcentration
increasesby 50% to .300,
whereaswhitepovertyconcentration
remainsconstantat .100, one-third
of the black level.
Thus, withcompleteracial segregation(and recallthatChicago had a
black-whitedissimilarity
index of .906 in 1980), the degreeof poverty
concentration
amongblacks can reachtrulyalarmingproportions
following a sharp downwardshiftin the distribution
of black income,as was
observed in many cities duringthe 1970s. This transformation
in the
socioeconomicenvironment
ofblacksoccursentirely
throughtheinteractionofthedistributional
structure
ofincomewiththeresidential
structure
of segregationand not as a resultof richblacks fleeingthe ghetto.
The threeright-hand
intothe
columnsoftable 1 buildclass segregation
as
analysisby distinguishing
betweenpoor and nonpoorneighborhoods,
340
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanApartheid
in figure2. In a citysegregatedby class as well as race, any increasein
but by
black povertyis absorbed, not simplyby black neighborhoods,
blacks
of
class
segregation
among
so
level
the
poor black neighborhoods,
increasesfrom.625 beforetheincomeshiftto .714 afterward(see thelast
by
threerows in the table). This increasestemsnot fromout-migration
of already-poorblack
rich blacks but fromthe furtherimpoverishment
neighborhoods.Racial segregationconcentratesany additionalpoverty
createdby an economicdownturnand heaps it on already-disadvantaged
causingclass segregationto rise.
neighborhoods,
minority
takesa
In essence,the impositionof class as well as racial segregation
bad situationand makes it worse. Considerthe resultsforcitiesthatare
columnsin table 1). Beforethe
segregatedby class (thethreeright-hand
range
incomeshift,povertyratesin theaveragepoorblack neighborhood
from.250 in a city with no segregationto .400 in one with complete
segregation.Afterthe shift,the economicsituationin poor black neighlevels,butthedeteriappreciablyat all segregation
borhoodsdeteriorates
orationis trulydisastrousat high levels of racial segregation.With a
index of .667, the neighborhoodof the average poor black
dissimilarity
residentgoes from35% poorto 45% poor,a relativeincreaseof29%; with
complete segregation,the neighborhoodpovertyrate of poor blacks
climbsfrom40% to 60%.
a 50% risein the
Thus, underconditionsofcompleteracialsegregation,
black povertyrate translatesdirectlyintoa 50% increasein the concentrationof povertyin poor black neighborhoods.In a segregatedcity,a
downwardincomeshiftin black incomescauses poorblacksto live in an
environmentwhere the vast majorityof neighborsare also poor. The
same incomechange,would, in the absence of segregation,yieldonlya
20% increase in povertyconcentrationamong poor blacks and would
leave themin neighborhoodswherethe vast majorityof people are not
poor.
environAs segregationrises,the disparitybetweentheneighborhood
mentsof poor whitesand poor blacks widensmarkedly.Withno racial
segregation,of course,poor whitesand poor blacks experiencethe geographicconsequencesoffallingblack incomesequally.Bothgroupsexperience a 20% increase in neighborhoodpovertyand end up living in
wherethreeout ofevery10 personsare poor. As segreganeighborhoods
insulatedfromthecontionrises,however,poor whitesare increasingly
sequencesoffallingblack incomes.As one movesfromcompleteintegrationto completesegregationunderconditionsof highblack poverty,the
falls from.300 to .200, while
povertyrate in poor whiteneighborhoods
that in poor black neighborhoodsrises from.300 to .600 (see the righthand columnlabeled "AfterBlack Income Shift"in the bottomhalf of
table 1). In short,the net effectof racial segregationis to exposewhites
341
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanJournalof Sociology
and blacks to vastlydifferent
socioeconomicenvironments
and to leave
the economicbase of the black community
extremely
vulnerableto any
downturnin its economicfortunes.
SEGREGATION AND THE CREATION OF THE UNDERCLASS
I have shownhow racial segregationacts to concentrate
povertyin space
and to focus any increasein povertyon a small numberof poor, geographicallyisolated minorityneighborhoods.Povertyis not a neutral
variable,ofcourse,and withhighratesofpovertycomea varietyofother
social and economicconditions:reducedbuyingpower,increasedwelfare
dependence,highratesof familydisruption,elevatedcrimerates,housing deterioration,
elevated infantmortalityrates,and decreasededucational quality. These outcomes,moreover,do not occurin isolationbut
representa set of mutuallyreinforcing
conditions.Thus, theincreasein
povertyconcentration
thatfollowsautomaticallywhentheminority
povertyrate rises in a segregatedcitybringsabout a constellationof other
that
changes in the social and economiccompositionof neighborhoods
have profoundimplicationsforthe well-beingof thosewho live there.
In this section,I explorethe natureof theseancillarysocial and economic changes and discuss their self-reinforcing
effectin producing
underclasscommunities.I accomplishthistaskby usingregression
equasocial and economic
tionsto predictspecificaspectsof a neighborhood's
environment
fromits povertyrate. Two data sets wereused to estimate
the predictionequations. One was a fileof approximately
21,000 census
on themedianhousetractslocatedin 60 SMSAs. It includedinformation
hold income,the public assistancerate, and the rate of female-headed
familiesin each tract(see Masseyand Denton1987).These variableswere
regressedon the tractpovertyrate and the proportionwhiteto yieldthe
threeequationsshown at the top of the Appendix.The secondfileconsistedof 333 tracts,located in Philadelphia,thatcontainedinformation
and schoolqualon tractcrimerates,death rates,housingdeterioration,
ity(Massey, Condran,and Denton 1987). These variableswerelikewise
regressedon the povertyrate and the proportionwhiteto producethe
equationsshownin the lowerportionof the Appendix.
The equations were used to predictthe socioeconomicenvironment
typicalof poor minority
neighborhoods
beforeand afteran assumedrise
in the black povertyrate under varyingconditionsof racial and class
segregation.Increasingthepovertyrateundervaryingconditionsofclass
and racial segregationleads to different
povertyconcentrations
(see my
discussionabove ofthehypothetical
cities).These povertyconcentrations
wereemployedto predictneighborhoodsocioeconomicconditionsby using the empiricallyestimatedequations. Table 2, forexample,predicts
342
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
i
I
t
t~~~~~~~~~~~~o
o
S~~~~~~~~t:
0
)
M N 8 Xs?XooN
C4Y l
ff
W
r
-cu:
X~~~~~~~~U
O
O
S~~~~~~~~4
; I
m H~~~0
m ?
O~~~(
H
00 N
X
Pz~~~~~~~~9
o
r-
4O
4
oo
m
settoo
o6
j
9
cl
eq
3~
cn
b0
cn
?
8st
O
OP
O PSq
Z
v
m
it 00
z;
SZ;~~~~~~~~~~~0
~c
II
.
__
u
, cn
14
-
-Xe
_NNe
oee
N
e
t
N
_
_
_
0
C.
N
_
_
_
N
o
CAt
C
o
~~0o
Q
=
ot80'
o
cd
Z
Q
o
Z13|=- :sSs
En
m
Y
_1m 6,_ _.. *
Cs__N,;
c
C,; C,
$O. . *| w''~~~~~~~~~~~~~1,
1
,
, C4
,
0
{)tmv
,
eA
g
=
CNO?,Og
00
in
X
= m
3 i
g
;>=
b
in
=
4
e
S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
t
.,
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanJournalof Sociology
thepercentageoffamilieson publicassistance,thepercentageoffamilies
with female heads, and the median familyincome by takingpoverty
concentrations
calculatedunderdifferent
assumptionsofracial and class
segregation(fromtable 1) and insertingtheminto the predictionequations,along with the percentageof whitesin black neighborhoods
(included as a control).
A simpleexampleillustrateshow thisand all subsequenttables were
created. The firsttwo columnsin the firstline of table 2 containthe
medianhouseholdincomespredictedforpoorblackneighborhoods
before
and afterthe incomeshift,assumingno racial or class segregation.The
table shows thatpoor blacks can expectto live in a neighborhood
witha
medianirncome
of $18,826 beforetheshiftand $17,488afterward.These
figureswere generatedby takingneighborhoodpovertyrates fromthe
firsttwo left-handcolumnsof thefirstrow of table 1 (12.5% and 15.0%)
and insertingthem into the equation that predictsmedian household
income(thefirstrow ofAppendixtableAl), togetherwiththepercentage
of whitesin each neighborhood(75%-see City 1, fig. 1). The equation
thuspredictsa loggedmedianneighborhoodincomeof 9.843 (= 10.187
+ 0.00033 x 75 - 0.0295 x 12.5), whose antilogis 18,826; afterthe
shiftit predictsa value of 9.769 (= 10.187 + 0.00033 X 75 - 0.0295 X
15), whose antilogis 17,488.
A majorconsequenceofanydownwardshiftin thedistributional
structure of black income is a reductionof buyingpower in neighborhoods
where poor blacks live. In orderto simplifyexposition,I comparethe
situationof poor black neighborhoods
createdunderfourpolar assumptions:no segregationby race or class, class segregationalone, complete
racial segregationwith no class segregation,and both class and racial
segregation.In the firstcircumstance,a rise in the black povertyrate
from20% to 30% is associatedwitha significant
drop in medianneighborhoodincomefrom$18,826 to $17,488, a declineof $1,338 or 7.1%.
This change impliesa substantialloss of demand in all neighborhoods
containingblacks.
If we assume that the median householdincomeis the same as the
mean (a conservativeassumptionforour purposes)and note thateach
neighborhoodcontainsabout 2,963 households(theneighborhood
population of 8,000 divided by the average U.S. householdsize, 2.7), then
each neighborhoodis expectedto lose about $3.96 millionin potential
demandas a resultoftheincomeshift(2,963 X 1,338 = 3.96 million).In
the absence of racial or class segregation,however,thisloss of buying
power is spread evenlythroughoutthe city.Retail profits,tax receipts,
and servicerevenuesfallforthecityas a whole,and somebusinessesand
serviceorganizationsclose, but no particularneighborhoodsuffersdis344
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanApartheid
proportionately,
and blacksand whitesdo notexperienceanydifferential
loss of access to goods or services.
Imposingclass segregationshiftsthe burdenof risingblack poverty
but,in theabsenceofracialsegregation,
fromrichto poorneighborhoods;
poor whites and blacks experiencethese disruptionsequally. If class
segregationalone is assumed,the medianincomein poor neighborhoods
a dropof$1,785,
fallsfrom$13,020 beforetheshiftto $11,235afterward,
thereimplyinga loss ofdemandof$5.29 million.In poorneighborhoods,
businesses
inevitably
services
are
cut
back,
and
fore,retailprofitsfall,
blacks and whitesstillexperience
close; but amongpoor neighborhoods,
the losses equally, and thereis no basis forthe formationof a racially
distinctiveunderclass.
The impositionof racial segregationchanges the situationentirely.
Underconditionsof completeracial segregationbut no class segregation,
the medianincomein black neighborhoods
fallsfrom$14,721 beforethe
rise in black povertyto $10,960 afterward,a drop of $3,761, or 25.5%,
substantiallygreaterthan the drop when class segregationis imposed
alone. A dropof thismagnitudeimpliesa verydramaticloss ofpotential
demand, with some $11.1 millionin income disappearingfromblack
neighborhoods
because of the shift.In theseareas, storeswill inevitably
will
close, serviceswill be withdrawn,and neighborhoodinvestments
drop.
Finally,a risein the black povertyratein a citythatis segregatedby
class as well as race confinesthe loss of incomeand potentialdemand
entirelyto poor black neighborhoods.As a result,what was a difficult
situationforpoor blacks becomesan outrightdisaster.Underconditions
of both racial and class segregation,poor black neighborhoodsface a
precarioussituationbeforethe income shift,with a median household
income
incomeof only$8,160. Afterthe shift,themedianneighborhood
a loss of $3,637, or 45%. Although
plummetsto $4,523, representing
neighborhoodsinhabitedby poor blacks had a weak potentialdemand
beforethe shift(only$24.2 million),afterthe shiftpotentialdemandis
almosthalved to $13.4 million,fora loss of $10.8 million.
A loss of this magnitudefroman already-smallincomebase would
rapidlybringabout the failureof mostnonessentialbusinessesand the
eliminationof servicesthatdependon theabilityofclientsto pay. Racial
segregationtakes the overall loss in black income,concentratesit spathatare the least able to
tially,and focusesit on fragileneighborhoods
absorbit. Underconditionsofhighracialsegregation,
downwardshiftsin
to support
black incomecutan alreadyweak demandto levelsinsufficient
goods and services.This outanythingmorethan the mostrudimentary
comeoccurswhetherthecityis segregatedbyclass or not,buttheimposi345
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanJournalof Sociology
tion of racial segregationon a citythat is already segregatedby class
greatlyexacerbatesthe severityof the economicdeprivationexperienced
by poor blacks.
Withfallingmedianincomes,othersocialconditionscan be expectedto
a sharprise
follow,butin theabsenceofeitherclass or racialsegregation,
in black povertydoes not have a particularlynoticeableeffecton the
social compositionof the neighborhoodswherepoor blacks live. In an
integratedcity, the income shiftcauses the percentageof familieson
publicassistanceto increasefrom11.5% to 13.4%, and thepercentageof
families)to risefrom11.7% to
familiesheaded byfemales(female-headed
class
segregationdoes notchangethisoutcome
13.2%. The impositionof
from21.1% beforethe shiftto
rate
increases
much-the dependency
familiesgoesfrom
female-headed
of
the
percentage
24.6% afterward,and
class
with
segregationalone poor
19.2% to 22.2%. More important,
the
blacksand whitesexperience changesequally,so a raciallydistinctive
underclasscannotform.
The impositionof racial segregationhas a morepowerfuleffecton the
experiencedby poor blacks. Withracial segregation
social environment
but no class segregation,the public assistancerate in black neighborhoods risesfrom21.2% to 28.6%, and the percentageof female-headed
familiesincreasesfrom21.5% to 27.5%. If class segregationis also imposed, however,the socioeconomiccompositionof poor black neighborhusband-wife
hoods moves from a situation where self-supporting,
familiesare in themajority,to an environment
wherewelfare-dependent,
female-headedfamiliesare thenorm.Aftertheshift,thedependencyrate
in poor black areas increasesfrom36.1% to 51%, and thepercentageof
female-headedfamiliesrises from33.5% to 45.5% (see the threerighthand columnsfor familieson public assistanceand those with female
heads in table 2).
Risingneighborhoodpovertyratesand fallingincomeshave otherefpoverty,racial
fectsas well (see table3). Duringperiodsofrisingminority
and class segregationbuildhousingdeterioration
enviintotheresidential
theloss ofincomein poorblack
ronmentof poor blacks by concentrating
incomefalls,homeownersare less
As totalneighborhood
neighborhoods.
able to repair and maintaintheirproperty,landlordsare less able to
recoverthe costs of buildingmaintenancefromtheirrents,and housing
dilapidationspreads. Moreover,even homeownersand landlordswith
moneyto maintaintheirpropertieshave less incentiveto do so becauseof
the spreading deteriorationaround them. Repair is renderedmore
difficult
and supplybusibytheclosingofhardwarestores,lumberyards,
nessesas a resultof fallingdemand in the neighborhood.
on thespread
Table 3 illustrates
effect
thepotentialsize ofsegregation's
of housingdeterioration
by predictingthe proportionof houses thatare
346
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanApartheid
boarded up. With no racial or class segregation,veryfew homes are
boardedup, and theshiftin black povertyrateshardlychangesthisfact:
around2% ofhomesare boardedup beforeand aftertheincomeshift(see
thefirstsectionof table 3). As segregationrises,however,theprevalence
of boarded-up housing increases,and the effectof the shiftin black
incomes becomes more noticeable. Under a regimeof completeracial
segregationbut no class segregation,4.5% of houses are boarded up
beforethe incomeshift,and 6% are boardedup afterward.The impositionofbothracial and class segregation
exacerbatesthissituationfurther,
withthe prevalenceof abandoned housingrisingfrom7.5% beforethe
incomeshiftto 10.5% afterward.
Loss of incomeand risingpovertyare also associatedwithincreasing
ratesof crimeand violence.Witha black povertyrateof30% (i.e., after
thedownwardshiftin black incomes),themajor crimeratein neighborhoodsinhabitedbypoorblacksis predictedto be 50 perthousandin a city
withoutclass or racial segregation;but, as racial segregationrises,the
rate steadilyincreasesto 60 per thousand(see table 3). In citiesthatare
segregatedby class alone, the major crimerateis similarlyabout 62 per
thousand; but this rate steadilyrises as racial segregationis imposed,
reachinga highof 84 per thousandunderconditionsof maximumsegregation. Thus, the impositionof racial segregationon a class-segregated
cityinevitablyproducesextremely
highcrimeratesin poor black neighborhoods.
The concentration
of povertythatfollowsdirectlyfromracial segregation also has strongeffectson the mortality
risksfaced by poor blacks.
The thirdsectionin table 3 shows how racial segregationsteadilyincreasesthe childhoodmortality
rateamongpoor blacks. Withan overall
black povertyrateof 30%, thechildhooddeathrateis 12.5 perthousand
withno racial or class segregation,risingto a rateof 18.4 per thousand
whenracial segregationis imposed(an increaseof47% attributable
to the
effectofracial segregationalone). Similarly,therateis 14.5 perthousand
when class segregationis imposed by itself,increasingto 22.5 per
thousandwhen racial segregationis added (an increaseof 55%).
These increasesin the risksof mortalityare generatedthroughboth
directand indirectmeans. Directly,the concentration
of povertyraises
mortalitybecause poor people lack moneyto pay formedical services;
even whenservicesexist,peoplecannotaffordto use them.The pooralso
tendto engagemorefrequently
in unhealthybehaviorssuch as smoking,
alcohol consumption,and drugabuse, and theirconcentration
in certain
neighborhoods
raisesmortality
ratesin thoseplaces. Indirectly,
theloss of
income in poor black neighborhoodsbringsabout the withdrawalof
healthservices,theclosingofhospitals,and theelimination
ofclinics;and
publiclysupportedmedical servicesthatremainin poor black neighbor347
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
j S
S
e zI
< > < -
X ?O t- 0
c3u$
fi~~~~~~~~~~v
Q v
X
t
?
O
v)00
i
z
u
Z~~~~~~
=
e
11
N
i
?
OO
Z Sxs
X
cn...
-EWX
11
_; c O
NN
(
~~~~~i_
mo
X
te
N
E
t
4
t
..
348
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
14- in
0t
xn 90
ire
4
r-
t- 10
in'
o,
o
=
ot-mtO?oo
>3
Q o
4-0
0~~
cn zo
.
.2
bo
tt
0,0d0O
?-tstIO O
Os
C41 in
00-
00
et
O 0-O
~
C~~4r~~~)lf)
0
N
C41 -M
5
O rl
666
c-.
t
e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
o
i
_?
.
.
.
_4 _
N
1t)
0
4=
_
'Z
c
b)
o
te
0
*U
bo
(Utn
U - -.0
0-
X
'Z
_d
4) 0
=
bo
OW
U
.
'm
w-4
cd w
m
.J?
.0
m
.
e=
,=
4
4.
.0
=
3
=
bo 3
=
=
6
_
=v
-
,_
bO
.
En
?n 'd
=U
cd
(U
0
v
3
dM
Q
Y
0
E
-4~~~~~~
.
Q-*Y D
?
3
Z >
0 v b
, t
?d 'dmt'
O_$vSm &
!
:
bO
bO O4O.
) sd
c=U
&Q
3.3
Cd
bl
~E
34 9
*
t
=
0
(Uwb
W
cd w
3Xo.3
~
.
0
~~1
s:
D
U
_o
!
*0
u0
4i
&. bo
-
Q#,.0
O
w
0
O
~moO
N
bewb
D?
.0m0
_w8pJ
=
b(3
'O Q 2
8:
bo
.-,
3?
,
,.
d,
u$
0
U
tn
bo34
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanJournalof Sociology
hoods are likelyto be of lower qualitythan thoseprovidedin nonpoor
whiteareas.
Finally, segregationhas a strongeffecton the quality of education
providedto studentsfrompoorblack neighborhoods.
Althoughtheeffect
of school socioeconomiccompositionon qualityof educationis unclear
(see Jencksand Mayer 1989), the concentration
of povertyin neighborhoods inevitablyconcentratesdeprivationin schools. Moreover,since
supportforpublic schools comes primarilyfromlocal tax receipts,the
declinein incomethataccompaniesa risein povertyconcentration
undercuts financialsupportforpublic schools servingpoor blacks. Areas of
concentrated
povertyalso do notprovidea densityofincomesufficient
to
supportprivateinstitutions.
The last two sectionsof table 3 illustratethe effectof segregationon
standardizedtestperformance
and schooldropoutrates.Aftertheincome
shift,the percentageof highschool studentsscoringbelow the fifteenth
percentileon the CaliforniaAchievementTest rises from27% under
conditionsofno racial or class segregation
to 42% withracialsegregation
alone. When class segregationis also imposed,the percentagesrange
from35% withno racial segregation
to 58% withcompleteracialsegregation. Similarly,the effectof the shiftin the income distribution
rises
steadilyas racial segregationincreases.Racial segregation
alone accounts
forthe difference
betweena neighborhoodschool wheremoststudents
score above the fifteenth
percentileand one wheremostdo not. Similar
effectsof racial segregationare observedforhighschool dropoutrates,
althoughthe effectsare less pronounced.
Thus, residentialsegregation
playsa veryimportant
rolein creatingthe
"tangleof pathology"long identifiedwiththe ghettoand morerecently
withthe underclass(see Clark 1965; Wilson 1987). Racial segregationis
thestructuralconditionimposedon blacksthatmakesintensely
deprived
communitiespossible,even likely.When racial segregation
occursin the
class-segregated
environment
ofthetypicalAmericancity,itconcentrates
income deprivationwithin a small number of poor black areas and
generatessocial and economicconditionsof intensedisadvantage.These
conditionsare mutuallyreinforcing
and cumulative,leadingdirectlyto
thecreationof underclasscommunities
typified
by highratesoffamilydisruption,welfaredependence,crime,mortality,
and educationalfailure.
Segregationcreates the structuralniche within which a self-perpetuatingcycleof minority
povertyand deprivation
can surviveand flourish.
SUMMARYAND CONCLUSION
Duringthe 1970s, black povertybecame morepersistent
and geographically concentratedin Americancities. Many observersexplainedthese
350
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanApartheid
trendsby pointingto the class-specificeffectsof governmentwelfare
policies,industrialrestructuring,
changingsexual mores,thebreakdown
ofthefamily,and thedepartureofthemiddleclass frominner-city
neighborhoods.While not denyingthe importanceof thesetrends,I contend
thatracial segregationwas thekeyfactorresponsibleforthesocial transformationof theblack community
and theconcentration
ofpovertyduring the 1970s. A perniciousinteractionbetweenrisingpovertyratesand
highlevels of segregationcreatedthe populationwe know as the urban
underclass.
Illustratingmygeneraltheoreticalargumentswitha simulatedexperiment,I have shownhow racial segregationshapes,and to a largeextent
thesocioeconomicenvironment
determines,
experiencedbypoorminority
families.Racial segregationconcentratesdeprivationin black neighborhoods by restricting
the povertycreated by economicdownturnsto a
small numberof minorityneighborhoods.To the extentthat citiesare
also segregatedby class, increasesin povertyare confinedlargelyto poor
thatunderconditions
minority
neighborhoods.Simulationsdemonstrate
of high class and racial segregation,poor black neighborhoodsrapidly
move to highconcentrations
of povertyfollowingan overallrisein black
povertyrates.
socioecoUsingempiricallyderivedequationsto predictneighborhood
I have also shown how
nomic outcomesfrompovertyconcentrations,
racial segregationacts to underminethe socioeconomicenvironment
faced by poor blacks and leaves theircommunities
extremely
vulnerable
to anydownturnin theeconomy.Underconditionsofhighracialsegregation,a risein theblack povertyrateproducesa dramaticloss in potential
demandin poorblack neighborhoods,
leadingto thewithdrawal,deterioration,and outright
eliminationofgoodsand servicesdistributed
through
themarket.Moreover,to theextentthatpublicservicesare dependenton
local tax revenuesor user fees,theyalso disappearor sufferdeclinesin
quality.
Because segregationconcentrates
disadvantage,shiftsin black poverty
ratescomparablewiththoseobservedduringthe 1970shave thepowerto
transform
thesocioeconomiccharacterofpoor black neighborhoods
very
rapidlyand dramatically,changinga low-incomeblack community
from
a place wherewelfare-dependent,
female-headedfamiliesare a minority
to one wheretheyare thenorm,producinghighratesof crime,property
abandonment,mortality,
and educationalfailure.All ofthesedeleterious
conditionsoccurthroughthejoint effectofrisingpovertyand highlevels
ofracial segregation.They can be producedat anytimethrougha simple
increasein black povertyratesunderconditionsprevailingin mostlarge
U.S. cities.They can be generatedforanyfixedlevelofclass segregation,
and theydo notrequiretheout-migration
ofmiddle-classblacksfromthe
351
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanJournalof Sociology
ghetto. Thus, racial segregationis crucial to understandingand explainingthe existenceof America'surban underclass.
The way that segregationconcentratespovertyand createsdisadvantaged minority
neighborhoods
providesa succinct,comprehensive
explanation that resolves several issues in the underclassdebate. First, it
explains why the urban underclass, however one definesit, is so
disproportionately
composedofblacksand PuertoRicans (see Reischauer
1987; Rickettsand Sawhill 1988). In the nation'slargesturban areas,
thesegroupsare theonlyones thathave simultaneously
experiencedhigh
levels of residentialsegregationand sharp increasesin poverty.Blackwhite dissimilarityindices generallyexceed .700; in the largesturban
areas, theyare usuallyabove .800. Likewise,PuertoRicans are theonly
Hispanic groupwhose segregationindicesare routinelyabove .700 (see
Massey and Denton 1989).Duringthe 1970s,otherminority
groups,such
smaller
as Mexicans and Asians, experiencedlowerlevelsofsegregation,
increasesin poverty,or both.
Segregation'srolein concentrating
povertyalso explainswhytheurban
underclass is confinedprimarilyto the Northeastand Midwest, and
mostlyto a smallnumberoflargemetropolitan
areas, suchas New York,
Chicago, Philadelphia,and Baltimore(see Bane and Jargowsky1988).
Duringthe 1970s,olderindustrialcitiesin theseregionsnotonlyexperiencedthesharpesteconomicreversalsbutalso exhibitedthehighestlevels
of racial segregationin the United States (see Levy 1987; Massey and
Denton 1987; Massey and Eggers 1990). Thus, industrialrestructuring
droveminority
povertyratesupwardmostsharplyin citieswhereblacks
and Hispanics were mostsegregated.
Explainingthe originsof the underclassin termsof continuingracial
segregationis also consistentwith earlierresearchshowingthatupperincomeblacksremainhighlysegregatedfromwhites,thatthispatternhas
not changed over time,and that the degreeof class segregationamong
blacks is actuallylowerthan thatamongotherminority
groups(Massey
and Denton 1987; Denton and Massey 1989a; Massey and Eggers 1990).
Segregation,therefore,
providesa morecogentand plausibleexplanation
fortheconcentration
of black povertythantheout-migration
ofthemiddle class fromthe ghetto.The latterhypothesisdoes not explain why
in theunderclassor whygeographicalmobilblacks are overrepresented
ityshouldconcentratepovertyamongblacksbutnotothergroups.In the
United States, spatial mobilityhas always accompaniedsocial mobility,
and middle-classfamilieshave always moved out of racial and ethnic
enclaves into residentially
integratedneighborhoods(see Massey 1985).
Middle-class blacks are not unique in seekingto put distancebetween
themselvesand thepoor;rather,theystandout becausetheyare less able
to do so than the middleclass of othergroups.
352
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanApartheid
The role that segregationplays in the creationof the underclassalso
explains the recent empirical findingsof other researchers.LaVeist
(1989a, 1989b),forexample,has shownthatthelevel ofblack residential
ratesand
segregationis the strongestpredictorof black infantmortality
that, whereas racial segregationsharply increases mortalityamong
reducesit amongwhites.My simulationsshow clearly
blacks,it strongly
how whitesgain and blackslose throughtheimpositionofracialsegregation.By confining
blacksto a smallnumberofsegregatedneighborhoods,
whitesinsulatethemselvesfromthehigherratesofblack povertyand the
problemsassociatedwithit; and as segregationrises,thetotalincomeof
whiteneighborhoodsgrowswhile that of black neighborhoods
falls,so
thatwhitesare in a betterpositionto supporthospitals,clinics,and other
medicalfacilities.
Anotherset ofempiricalresultshas recentlybeen generatedby Galster
and Keeney(1988), usinga simultaneousequationsmodelof segregation
in 40 U.S. metropolitanareas. They uncovereda verysignificant
and
dynamicfeedbackrelationship
blacksocioeconomic
betweensegregation,
status,and discrimination,
wherebyrisingsegregationincreasedblackwhiteoccupationaldifferences,
whichin turnincreasedthelevelofblackwhitesegregationthrougha negativerelationship
withblack income.At
the same time,fallingblack socioeconomicstatusraisedthelevel of disin thehousingmarket,which,in turn,increasedsegregation,
crimination
further
reducingblack incomesand occupationalstatus,leadingto additionaldiscrimination
and segregation,and so on.
This sortofdynamicrelationshipis interpretable
in termsofthemodel
of segregationand povertyconcentrationI have developed. Whites
benefitfromsegregationbecause it isolateshigherratesof black poverty
withinblack neighborhoods.These higherconcentrations
of black povthe connection,in whites'minds,betweenblack race
ertythenreinforce
and behaviorsassociatedwithpoverty,such as crime,familydisruption,
and dependency.Segregationheightensand reinforcesnegativeracial
stereotypes
by concentrating
people who fitthosestereotypes
in a small
numberofhighlyvisibleminority
neighborhoods-a structural
versionof
"blamingthevictim"(Ryan 1972)-therebyhardeningprejudice,making
discrimination
morelikely,and maintainingthe motivationforsegregation.The persistenceofsegregation,
in turn,worsenstheconcentration
of
poverty,puttingadditionaldownwardpressureon black socioeconomic
status,makingfurther
segregationand discrimination
morelikely,and so
on. In short,the feedbackloop identified
by Galsterand Keeney(1988)
could verywell operatethrougha close connectionbetweenracial segregationand black povertyconcentration.
Finally,an appreciationoftherolethatsegregation
playsin generating
and perpetuating
theunderclasspointsto theneed fora verydifferent
set
353
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanJournalof Sociology
of policiestowardpovertyand the underclass.In recentyears,a variety
ofinitiativeshave been proposedor enactedto addressclass-basedproblemswithintheblack community,
suchas joblessness,familydisruption,
drugabuse, low levelsofeducation,alcoholism,and crime.These serious
social problemsclearlymust be addressed,but I argue that,unlessthe
issue of race is simultaneouslyaddressed,these class-relatedproblems
cannotbe solved.
The issue forpublicpolicyis notwhetherraceor class is responsiblefor
the currentplightof blacks in the UnitedStates,but how race and class
interactto underminethewell-beingof thisgroup.Arguments
about the
decliningsignificance
ofrace (Wilson1978, 1987),debateson theeffectof
governmentwelfarepolicies (Murray1984; Jencks1985), and disputes
about trendsin the concentration
of poverty(Reischauer1987; Ricketts
and Sawhill 1988; Bane and Jargowsky1988) have largelyignoredthe
continuingrealityofsegregationimposedon blacksbecauseoftheirrace.
Race affectsthe social and economicwell-beingof blacks primarily
throughthe housingmarket.Two decades afterthe passage of the Fair
HousingAct, levelsofblack segregation
remainexceedingly
highin large
urban areas where the concentrationof povertyis more severe (New
York, Chicago, Philadelphia,Newark, and Detroit,accordingto Bane
and Jargowsky).This highlevelofblack segregation
cannotbe explained
by blacks' objective socioeconomiccharacteristics
(Massey and Denton
1987; Denton and Massey 1989a),theirhousingpreferences
(Farleyet al.
1978; Schuman, Steeh, and Bobo 1985), or theirlimitedknowledgeof
white housing markets(Farley 1979; Farley, Bianchi, and Colasanto
1979). Rather,it is linkedempirically
to thepersistence
ofdiscrimination
in housing markets(Galster 1986, 1987a, 1987b; Galster and Keeney
1988)and to continuingantiblackprejudice(Farleyet al. 1978;Schuman
and Bobo 1988). Ironically,PuertoRicans are the exceptionthatproves
the rule, since the high degreeof segregationtheyexperienceis clearly
attributableto the persistenceof a black racial identityamong them
(Massey and Bitterman1985; Denton and Massey 1989b).
In short,my explicationof segregation'srole in concentrating
urban
povertyand creatingthe underclassstronglysuggeststhat class-based
policieswill not succeed by themselves.As long as racial discrimination
and prejudice are translatedso directlyinto economic disadvantage
throughhousingmarkets,and as long as racial segregationpersistsat
such highlevelsin Americancities,blacksand PuertoRicanswillremain
vulnerablegroups whose basis for communitylife and socioeconomic
or
underminedbytheclosingofa factory
well-beingcan be systematically
theonsetofa recession.This vulnerability
stemsfromthefactthatsegregationintensifies
and magnifiesanyeconomicsetbackthesegroupssuffer
354
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanApartheid
intotheirsocial and economicenviand builds deprivationstructurally
ronments.
APPENDIX
TABLE Al
REGRESSION EQUATIONS USED TO PREDICT NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENTAL
CHARACTERISTICS IN HYPOTHETICAL CITIES
INDEPENDENT
VARIABLES
PREDICTED
OUTCOMEVARIABLE
Percentage
White
Poverty
Rate
R2
Intercept
Equations estimatedacross
20,854 tractsin 60 SMSAs:
Median householdincome(logged):
Coefficient.
SE .(.00006)
Percentagefamilieson assistance:
Coefficient.-
SE ..........
Percentagefemale-headedfamilies:
Coefficient.-
SE .(.002)
Equations estimatedacross
333 tractsin Philadelphia:
Percentagehouses boarded up:
Coefficient
.SE .(.006)
Major crimerate:
Coefficient
..02
SE .(.08)
Childhooddeath rate:
Coefficient
.SE .(.03)
Percentagehighschool students
below fifteenth
percentileon CAT:
Coefficient.-
SE ......
High school dropoutrate:
Coefficient
..01
SE .(.007)
.00033*
-.03*
10.19*
.75*
(.0002)
(.006)
.05*
(.002)
.75*
(.004)
6.26*
(.16)
.79*
.07*
.60*
(.004)
9.58*
(.16)
.75*
.02*
.15*
(.02)
1.58*
(.59)
.47*
.79*
(.02)
36.55*
(8.47)
.06*
.05
.14*
(.07)
14.37*
(2.74)
.06*
.09*
(.02)
.53*
(.04)
25.78*
(1.65)
.61*
.20*
(.02)
6.49*
(.74)
.34*
* P < .05.
355
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanJournalof Sociology
REFERENCES
Auletta, Ken. 1982. The Underclass. New York: Vintage.
Bane, Mary Jo, and D. Ellwood. 1986. "Slipping intoand out of Poverty:The Dynamics of Spells." JournalofHumanResources21:1-23.
Bane, Mary Jo, and Paul A. Jargowsky.1988. "Urban PovertyAreas: Basic Questions
concerningPrevalence, Growth,and Dynamics." Paper preparedforthe Committee
on National Urban Policy, National Academy of Sciences, Washington,D.C.
Clark, Kenneth B. 1965. Dark Ghetto:Dilemmas ofSocial Power. New York: Harper
& Row.
Corcoran, Mary, GregJ. Duncan, Gerald Gurin, and Patricia Gurin. 1985. "Mythand
Reality: The Causes and Persistenceof Poverty." Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management
4:516-36.
Denton, Nancy A., and Douglas S. Massey. 1989a. "Residential Segregation of
Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians by Socioeconomic Status and Generation." Social
ScienceQuarterly
69:797-817.
. 1989b. "Racial Identityamong Caribbean Hispanics: The Effectof Double
Minority Status on Residential Segregation." American Sociological Review
54:790-808.
Farley, Reynolds. 1979. "Can Blacks Affordto Live in White Residential Areas? A
Test of the HypothesisThat Subjective Economic Variables AccountforResidential
Segregation." Paper presentedat the annual meetingsof the Population Association
of America, Philadelphia.
Farley, Reynolds, Suzanne Bianchi, and Diane Colasanto. 1979. "Barriers to the
Racial Integrationof Neighborhoods: The Detroit Case." Annals of the American
AcademyofPoliticaland Social Science441:97-113.
Farley, Reynolds, Howard Schuman, Suzanne Bianchi, Diane Colasanto, and S.
Hatchett. 1978. "Chocolate City, Vanilla Suburbs: Will the Trend toward Racially
Separate CommunitiesContinue?" Social Science Research 7:319-44.
Galster, George C. 1986. "More than Skin Deep: The Effectof Housing Discrimination on the Extent and Pattern of Racial Residential Segregation in the United
States." Pp. 119-40 in HousingDesegregation
and FederalPolicy,edited by John
M. Goering. Chapel Hill: Universityof North Carolina Press.
. 1987a. "Residential Segregation and Interracial Economic Disparities: A
Simultaneous Equations Approach." JournalofUrbanEconomics21:22-44.
. 1987b. "The Ecology of Racial Discriminationin Housing: An Exploratory
Model." UrbanAffairs
23:84-107.
Quarterly
Galster, George C., and W. Mark Keeney. 1988. "Race, Residence, Discrimination,
and Economic Opportunity:Modeling the Nexus of Urban Racial Phenomena."
UrbanAffairs
24:87-117.
Quarterly
Glasgow,Douglas G. 1981. TheBlack Underclass:Poverty,Unemployment,
and the
Entrapmentof Ghetto Youth. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jencks,Christopher.1985. "How Poor Are the Poor?" New YorkReview ofBooks 32
(8): 41-49.
Jencks,Christopher,and Susan E. Mayer. 1990. "The Social Consequences of Growing Up in a Poor Neighborhood: A Review." In Concentrated Urban Poverty in
America, edited by Michael McGeary and Lawrence Lynn. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy. In press.
LaVeist, Thomas A. 1989a. "Linking Residential Segregationand InfantMortalityin
U.S. Cities." Sociologyand Social Research73:90-94.
. 1989b. "The Effectsof Racial Residential Segregationon the Black/White
InfantMortalityDifferential." Paper presentedat the annual meetingsof the Population Association of America, Baltimore.
356
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AmericanApartheid
Levy,Frank. 1987.Dollarsand Dreams:The Changing
AmericanIncomeDistribu-
tion. New York: Russell Sage.
Massey, Douglas S. 1985. "Ethnic Residential Segregation:A Theoretical Synthesis
and EmpiricalReview."Sociologyand Social Research69:315-50.
Massey, Douglas S., and Brooks Bitterman. 1985. "Explaining the Paradox of Puerto
Rican Segregation." Social Forces 64:306-31.
Massey, Douglas S., GretchenA. Condran, and Nancy A. Denton. 1987. "The Effect
of Residential Segregation on Black Social and Economic Well-Being." Social
Forces 66:29-56.
Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. 1987. "Trends in the ResidentialSegregation of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians." American Sociologial Review 52:802-25.
. 1988. "Suburbanization and Segregationin U.S. MetropolitanAreas." Ameri-
can JournalofSociology94:592-626.
. 1989. "Residential Segregation of Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans in
U.S. MetropolitanAreas." Sociology and Social Research 73:73-83.
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.
McLanahan, Sara, Irwin Garfinkel,and Dorothy Watson. 1988. "Family Structure,
Poverty,and the Underclass." Pp. 102-47 in Urban Change and Poverty,edited by
Michael G. H. McGeary and Lawrence E. Lynn. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy.
Murray,Charles. 1984. LosingGround:AmericanSocial Policy,1950-1980.New
York: Basic.
Reischauer, Robert D. 1987. "The Size and Characteristicsof the Underclass." Paper
presentedat the APPAM Research Conference,Bethesda, Md.
Ricketts,Erol R., and Isabel V. Sawhill. 1988. "Definingand Measuring the Under-
class." JournalofPolicyAnalysisand Management
7:316-25.
Ryan, William. 1972. Blaming the Victim. New York: Vintage.
Schuman, Howard, and Lawrence Bobo. 1988. "Survey-basedExperimentson White
Racial Attitudes toward Residential Integration."American Journal of Sociology
94:273-99.
Schuman, Howard, Charlotte Steeh, and Lawrence Bobo. 1985. Racial Attitudes
in America: Trends and Interpretations.Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Wilson,WilliamJ. 1978. The DecliningSignificance
ofRace: Blacksand Changing
American Institutions. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
. 1987.The TrulyDisadvantaged:TheInnerCity,theUnderclass,
and Public
Policy. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
357
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions