16,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Serie: PIMS - Polity Immigration and Society series
- Sprache: Englisch
The majority of immigrants settle in cities when they arrive, and few can deny the dynamic influence migration has on cities. However, a "one-size-fits-all" approach cannot describe the activities and settlement patterns of immigrants in contemporary cities. The communities in which immigrants live and the jobs and businesses where they earn their living have become increasingly diversified. In this insightful book, Eric Fong and Brent Berry describe both contemporary patterns of immigration and the urban context in order to understand the social and economic lives of immigrants in the city. By exploring topics such as residential patterns, community form, and cultural influences, this book provides a broader understanding of how newcomers adapt to city life, while also reshaping its very fabric.
This comprehensive and engaging book will be an invaluable text for students and scholars of immigration, race, ethnicity, and urban studies.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 258
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2017
Ähnliche
Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Acknowledgements
1 Introduction
Characteristics of Contemporary Immigration
Characteristics of the Urban Context
2 The Residential Patterns of Immigrants in Cities
Why Study Immigrants’ Residential Patterns?
How to Measure Residential Segregation
The Classical Explanations
Recent Theoretical Developments
Empirical Findings on Residential Segregation of Immigrants
Conclusions
3 Housing Attainment, Homeownership, and the Immigrant Experience in Global Cities
Diverse Immigrant Housing Experiences
Housing and Immigrant Clustering into Gateway Cities and Ethnic Neighborhoods
Immigrant Cultural Preferences, Group Strategies, and Housing Attainment
Immigrant Crowding and Compact Living: Tolerance or Preference?
Housing Modifications that Embody Immigrant Cultural Values
Immigrants and Homeownership
The Immigrant Homeownership Gap: Causes and Consequences
Conclusions
Notes
4 Immigration and Ethnic Community
Emergence of the Immigrant Community
Functions of Immigrant Communities
Negative Consequences of Immigrant Communities
New Trends in Immigrant Communities
Conclusions
5 Immigrant Businesses and Ethnic Economies
Classification of Immigrant Businesses
Common Characteristics of Immigrant Businesses
Immigrant Enclave Economy
Ethnic Economy
City Context and Immigrant Economic Activity: Classical and Contemporary Perspectives
Economic Returns When Participating in Ethnic Businesses
Conclusions
6 Immigrants and the Foodscapes, Playscapes, and Landscapes of Global Cities
Immigrants and the Urban Foodscape
Immigrants and the Playscape
Contemporary Urban Landscapes and Immigrant Cultures
Conclusions
Notes
7 Time Use among Immigrants: A Window to Acculturation into a New Society
Using Time-use Data to Study Assimilation in Terms of Economic and Social Outcomes
Methods of Collecting Immigrant Time-Use Data
Time Use among Immigrant Children
Time Use among Adults: Market Work and Barriers to Immigrant Integration
Gender Differences in Work/Home Time
Time Flexibility, Scheduling, and Multi-tasking for Immigrants
Conclusions
8 Conclusions
References
Index
End User License Agreement
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
ii
iii
iv
vi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
Immigration & Society series
Carl L. Bankston III, Immigrant Networks and Social Capital
Stephanie A. Bohon & Meghan Conley,Immigration and Population
Caroline B. Brettell, Gender and Migration
Thomas Faist, Margit Fauser, & Eveline Reisenauer,Transnational Migration
Eric Fong & Brent Berry, Immigration and the City
Christian Joppke, Citizenship and Immigration
Grace Kao, Elizabeth Vaquera, & Kimberly Goyette,Education and Immigration
Nazli Kibria, Cara Bowman, & Megan O’Leary,Race and Immigration
Peter Kivisto, Religion and Immigration
Cecilia Menjívar, Leisy J. Abrego, & Leah C. Schmalzbauer, Immigrant Families
Ronald L. Mize & Grace Peña Delgado,Latino Immigrants in the United States
Philip Q. Yang, Asian Immigration to the United States
Min Zhou & Carl L. Bankston III,The Rise of the New Second Generation
Immigration and the City
Eric Fong and Brent Berry
polity
Copyright © Eric Fong and Brent Berry 2017
The right of Eric Fong and Brent Berry to be identified as Author of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
First published in 2017 by Polity Press
Polity Press65 Bridge StreetCambridge CB2 1UR, UK
Polity Press350 Main StreetMalden, MA 02148, USA
All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purpose of criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.
ISBN-13: 978-0-7456-9005-6
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataNames: Fong, Eric, 1960- author. | Berry, Brent Matthew, author.Title: Immigration and the city / Eric Fong, Brent Berry.Description: Cambridge, UK ; Malden, MA : Polity Press, 2017. | Includes bibliographical references and index.Identifiers: LCCN 2016029977 (print) | LCCN 2016039542 (ebook) | ISBN 9780745690018 (hardback) | ISBN 9780745690025 (pbk.) | ISBN 9780745690032 (EPdf) | ISBN 9780745690049 (mobi) | ISBN 9780745690056 ( Epub)Subjects: LCSH: Cities and towns. | Emigration and immigration--Social aspects. | Immigrants--Social conditions. | Sociology, Urban.Classification: LCC HT215 .F66 2017 (print) | LCC HT215 (ebook) | DDC 307.76--dc23LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016029977
The publisher has used its best endeavours to ensure that the URLs for external websites referred to in this book are correct and active at the time of going to press. However, the publisher has no responsibility for the websites and can make no guarantee that a site will remain live or that the content is or will remain appropriate.
Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked the publisher will be pleased to include any necessary credits in any subsequent reprint or edition.
For further information on Polity, visit our website: www.politybooks.com
Acknowledgments
Eric Fong would like to thank Kumiko Shibuya for her valuable suggestions. Brent Berry would like to thank Milos Brocic for his outstanding research assistance with the topics of immigrant housing, leisure, and time use in cities.
1Introduction
We are living in an “age of migration” (Castles et al. 2013). In 2011, about 6 million people in Canada were foreign-born, representing 21 percent of the total population (Statistics Canada 2013). In 2010, about 39 million people in the United States were foreign-born, representing 13 percent of the total population (Singer 2013). Most immigrants settle in cities when they first arrive. This is not a surprising pattern, as the majority of the Canadian and American populations reside in urban areas: 82 percent of the population of Canada and 81 percent of the population of the United States (World Bank 2015). Although many countries have experienced tremendous growth in immigration, this book largely focuses on the settlement and acculturation of immigrants in Canada and the United States. Rich data related to immigration are available in both countries, enabling effective comparisons.
Most people know a little about the settlement patterns of immigrants in cities from discussion with friends and media reports. This book explores these patterns, specifically how geographic contexts shape the settlement patterns of immigrants in contemporary cities. It also explores key aspects of immigrant housing attainment; community, business, and economic activity; and contributions to cosmopolitan city life. The settlement patterns, community forms, and economic endeavors of immigrants have become more varied and dispersed in contemporary cities, so a “one-size-fits-all” approach to explaining adaptation of immigrants in cities is no longer appropriate. Social scientists have been forced to expand and qualify their descriptions of these patterns, and also to use new forms of evidence, such as time-use data, to understand the behaviors of immigrants.
Understanding the social and economic lives of immigrants in cities is an important topic, and requires two processes to be clarified simultaneously: how immigrants adjust to the social, cultural, and economic environment of the city, and how they contribute to the social, cultural, and economic development of the city.
Characteristics of Contemporary Immigration
Many immigrants living in Canada and the United States arrived after 1970 as a result of changes in immigration policies. This new wave of immigrants has two major characteristics. First, many now come from non-European countries. The 2011 National Household Survey in Canada revealed that about 10 percent of immigrants in Canada were from African countries and nearly 60 percent were from Asian countries, especially the Philippines, China, and India, which represented 13 percent, 11 percent, and 10 percent of the total immigrant population respectively (Statistics Canada 2013). In 2013, most immigrants in the United States were from Mexico, at 28 percent of the total immigrant population, followed by India and China at 5 percent each, and then the Philippines at 4 percent (Zong and Batalova 2015). Because most of these immigrants chose to settle in major cities, one major direct consequence is the increasing racial diversity of cities, so the processes of immigrant integration may differ from those of European immigrants in previous generations.
The second characteristic is the increasing socioeconomic disparity among immigrants: some arrive with limited language and education, while others may have completed higher education and have considerable financial resources. In 2013, about 50 percent of immigrants aged 5 or older in the United States reportedly spoke English “not at all,” “not well,” or “well,” and about 50 percent only spoke English or spoke English “very well.” Additionally, about 30 percent of immigrants did not have a high school diploma, while 28 percent had completed a university degree (Zong and Batalova 2015). According to the 2011 Canadian National Household Survey, about 5 percent of immigrants aged 25–64 in Canada were not able to hold a conversation in either English or French; about 12 percent did not have a high school diploma, while about 31 percent had completed a university degree. These differences shape diverse integration outcomes: some immigrants have more resources to help them adapt, and more residential options. Because socioeconomic differences can lead to diverse assimilation outcomes, not all immigrants go through the same processes of integration.
Characteristics of the Urban Context
Since the 1970s, there have also been unique developments in the urban contexts where immigrants settle. Most major cities underwent rapid suburbanization between 1950 and 1970. Cities became more dispersed and decentralized, and a larger proportion of the population in urban areas settled in the suburbs. In 2006, Statistics Canada estimated that only 48 percent of the population in all metropolitan areas lived in neighborhoods less than 10 kilometers from the city center (Turcotte 2008). Suburban sprawl is known to affect daily activities and group interactions. The scattered residential arrangements of suburban areas encourage automobile culture, weakening close networks among neighbors and neighborhood shops. Suburban sprawl also usually means more distance between residence and workplace. Additionally, most suburban households are middle class, suggesting a possible socioeconomic segregation from people living in the city center.
The economies of cities have also changed to benefit more educated immigrants working in globally connected businesses at the expense of low-skill immigrants working in traditional manufacturing jobs. Since the 1970s, many manufacturing jobs have moved to developing countries. In the United States, for example, Chicago lost 177,000 manufacturing jobs and Detroit lost 87,000 between 1995 and 2005 (Pacione 2009). In Canada, the percentage of manufacturing jobs dropped from 22 percent to 17 percent of all jobs in only five years, from 1975 to 1980. Low-skill immigrants have been seriously affected, because manufacturing jobs are their major source of employment. At the same time, demand for skilled workers has increased.
This book explores immigrant settlement patterns within this increasingly complex context: how do urban forms shape the integration patterns of immigrants, and how does the adaptation of immigrants change urban forms?
Chapter 2 focuses on an issue central to understanding immigration and the city: the residential patterns of immigrants. It summarizes the classic perspectives and explores how scholars have recently developed new perspectives in an attempt to address some of the limitations of the classic perspectives. Almost all these theoretical perspectives suggest that the residential patterns of immigrants reflect their adaptation. In other words, their adaptation to the new country shapes urban forms. Chapter 2 also reviews the findings from current studies, which clearly show that no single perspective can be applied to all immigrant groups. Finally, it focuses on four types of neighborhoods that have been largely shaped by the process and outcomes of immigrant integration: mixed, gentrified, economically polarized, and immigrant suburban.
Chapter 3 focuses on the attainment of housing by immigrants at the individual level. It presents different trajectories of housing attainment related to individual socioeconomic resources. The discussion will reveal how immigrants with different socioeconomic resources adapt to the existing urban context. It will also show how the development of the physical housing environment is shaped by the socioeconomic and demographic background of immigrants. Overall, immigrants with different socioeconomic resources have diverse paths to housing attainment.
Chapter 4 focuses on immigrant community: the social and economic activities that bind immigrants together. Specifically, how have changes in the socioeconomic backgrounds of immigrants led to changes in the membership and functions of the commu-nity? The discussion will reveal that immigrant communities are beneficial to not only the first generation, but also the second generation. Chapter 4 also presents a review of two recent urban developments: the concentration of immigrants in suburban areas, and the transnational dimensions of immigrant communities. It will explore how the adaptation of immigrants transforms urban patterns, and how the nature and functions of immigrant communities are becoming more complex.
Chapter 5 focuses on immigrant businesses. Economic activities are one of the major activities of immigrant communities in cities. To help clarify the concentration of immigrant businesses, it presents a few ways to capture the complexity of contemporary economic activities among immigrants. As immigrant businesses become more diverse in size and involved in different industrial sectors, their geographical distribution is affected. Additionally, city contexts shape the earnings of individuals involved in immigrant businesses.
Chapter 6 explores the presence of immigrants in relation to the culture of the city. First, it focuses on how the food offered in local restaurants is influenced by immigrant communities and how the status of ethnic cuisine is elevated. Second, it explores how the socioeconomic background of immigrants shapes their participation in different leisure sports. Finally, it reviews how the cultural practices of immigrants shape the suburban landscape and public spaces.
Chapter 7 addresses the need for different types of data in research about the increasing complexity of immigrant adaptation and its relationship to urban patterns. It illustrates how time-use data can help clarify immigrant adaptation in a city. These data provide detailed information about individuals, so they reveal how people spend their time and how these patterns shape integration patterns, which in turn can lead to different urban forms.
2The Residential Patterns of Immigrants in Cities
Immigrant neighborhoods can be found in most large North American cities, such as New York, San Francisco, Toronto, and Vancouver. For example, we see Chinese immigrants in Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California; Salvadoran immigrants in Mount Pleasant, Washington, DC; Korean immigrants in Palisades Park, Bergen County, New Jersey; and Asian immigrants in Brampton, Ontario, Canada. In these neighborhoods, ethnic signage is everywhere. It is common to hear people speaking their own ethnic languages and see them dressed in distinctive ethnic clothing. Some of these neighborhoods were developed long ago by earlier generations, but others have only recently become associated with an ethnic group.
Why Study Immigrants’ Residential Patterns?
For decades, researchers have sought to identify the residential patterns of immigrants and to explain the causes, perpetuation, and consequences of these patterns (Farley and Allen 1990; Frey and Farley 1996; Iceland and Scopilliti 2008; Lieberson 1963; Massey and Denton 1990). Some studies have focused on all immigrants together, while others have focused on particular groups (Fong and Hou 2009; Iceland and Scopilliti 2008; Massey and Denton 1988a). The term “immigrant residential segregation” usually refers to the physical separation of immigrants from non-immigrants (Lieberson 1963). Immigrant residential segregation occurs when immigrants are not evenly distributed across a city’s neighborhoods; this unevenness can be mild or extreme. Patterns of segregation can be further characterized by examining how immigrants vary from the general population in terms of demographic and socioeconomic variables.
What are the social implications of immigrant residential segregation? Some studies have concluded that opportunities in life are strongly related to residential location (Massey and Fong 1990; Massey et al. 1987; Ramey 2013; Schieman 2005; Villarreal and Silva 2006). For example, neighborhoods with lower socioeconomic standing are usually associated with lower school completion rates (Massey et al. 2006), less access to job information (Smith 2005; Wilson 1996), higher rates of unemployment (Wilson 1996), and poorer physical health among residents (Hou and Myles 2005; Schieman 2005). Neighborhoods with low socioeconomic standing also have fewer good schools (Smith et al. 1997), worse physical amenities (Massey and Fong 1990), and more exposure to criminal activity (Sampson 2012; Sampson et al. 1997). Therefore, immigrant groups that are segregated into neighborhoods with low socioeconomic standing are likely to face greater challenges in terms of social and economic disadvantages.
For immigrants living in segregated neighborhoods, even affluent neighborhoods, social isolation is a hurdle to achieving full integration into the new society. Insufficient opportunities to interact with the local-born population limits the diversity of social networks and delays learning about the new culture and environment (Alba and Nee 2003; Massey and Mullan 1984; Massey et al. 1987). This social isolation effect can have a lasting impact, not only for the first generation, but also for children of immigrants. Zhou (1997) suggested that immigrant segregation in poor neighborhoods can inhibit the integration of second-generation immigrants: the children of immigrants living in poor neighborhoods are deprived of social and economic resources, such as better schools and access to good job information from neighbors. The social environment of these neighborhoods fosters social deprivation, which in turn may promote an “oppositional culture” among members of the younger generation who feel abandoned by society (Ogbu 2008). They may be skeptical of the ability of school achievement to provide upward mobility and have little hope of ever joining the middle class.
How to Measure Residential Segregation
Scholars have proposed many measures of residential segregation, but no single measure conceptually captures the five distinctive dimensions of segregation that have been identified: evenness, exposure, concentration, centralization, and clustering (Massey and Denton 1988b). “Evenness” is the extent to which the distribution of two groups living within geographic units in a city reflects their overall citywide proportions. In the ideal case, an “even” distribution of two groups means that the proportion of the two groups in each neighborhood is the same as the proportion in the entire city. “Exposure” refers to the possibility of interaction between two groups in geographic units in a city based on their relative proportions. This is not based on deviation from the ideal of “evenness.” A high exposure refers to the high likelihood of a group member who is “experiencing segregation” (Massey and Denton 1988b) being exposed to members of another group living in the same neighborhood. Thus, exposure is affected by the sizes of the two groups being compared. “Concentration” refers to the relative amount of space occupied by members of a group (Massey and Denton 1988b). Concentration can be absolute or relative. Absolute concentration refers to the area occupied by a group, whereby a group occupying a smaller area is more concentrated, whereas relative concentration takes into consideration the concentration of the other group. “Centralization” refers to the level at which a group resides in or near the central area of the city. It can also be absolute or relative. Absolute centralization refers to the proportion of the group occupying the central area, while relative concentration refers to the proportion of the group that would need to move to match the centralization of a different group. “Clustering” refers to the extent to which members of a group reside in geographic units that are adjacent to one another. Similarly, clustering level includes two types of measures. Absolute clustering refers to the average proportion of groups living near each other. Relative clustering refers to the average distance between members of a group, compared with the average distance between members of another group.
Among the various indexes that have been proposed to measure these five dimensions of segregation, the dissimilarity index (D) and the interaction index (P*) are the most often used. These measures are easy to compute and interpret, but require simplifying the population into two groups, which can mean that important multi-group dynamics are overlooked (Fong and Shibuya 2005).
Most American and Canadian studies about the residential patterns of immigrants use census tracts as a proxy for neighborhoods in calculating the segregation index. A census tract is a geostatistical area designated by a national statistics agency (i.e. US Census Bureau in the US, and Statistics Canada in Canada). In both the United States and Canada, census tracts may include 2,500–8,000 residents, with an average of 4,000 residents. The boundaries are usually stable and follow distinctive physical features, such as major roads and geographic contours. When each census tract was first created, individuals and households within the borders tended to be relatively homogeneous in terms of socioeconomic status, meaning there was less variation within each tract than across tracts.
The Classical Explanations
The analysis of immigrant residential patterns has a long tradition in the social sciences. This section summarizes the classical explanations offered by sociologists in the early twentieth century, a period of rapid urban change as many immigrants arrived in North America from Europe. A group of sociologists, now referred to as the Chicago School, was especially important in setting the foundation for later research.
Ernest Burgess: Concentric Zone Model
Ernest Burgess was a member of the Chicago School, and made one of the most important theoretical contributions to understanding immigrant residential patterns. In his seminal work The City (1925), he introduced his Concentric Zone Model to explain immigrant residential patterns. According to this theory, cities expand in a series of concentric circles. Burgess had observed that in Chicago, immigrants first settled in a zone with deteriorating housing mixed with factories, adjacent to the “central business district.” He labeled this area “the zone in transition.” Immigrants settled in this area because housing values were low and the area was close to their place of work; they clustered in these neighborhoods because they had limited resources upon arrival. As they stayed in the country longer and accumulated more economic resources, they moved into what Burgess called the “zone of workingmen’s homes,” which was next to the zone of transition and generally included two-parent family homes. Outside the zone of workingmen’s homes was “the zone of better residence.” This zone typically consisted of residences with spacious lots for middle-class families. The most outward zone was “the commuters’ zone,” located at the boundary of the city, with still better housing. Immigrants are assumed to move outward to better housing areas as their socioeconomic resources improve.
Louis Wirth was a contemporary of Burgess and was also a key member of the Chicago School. His work focused on Jewish settlement in the United States during the early twentieth century (1962). He made major contributions to research about immigrant communities, which will be discussed in more detail in chapter 4. Briefly, Wirth was influenced by Burgess’s arguments, and assumed that the early Jewish residential segregation was temporary and would gradually disappear. He speculated that Jews would move away from ethnically concentrated areas and into better neighborhoods if their economic resources improved and if neighborhoods were available.
More recently, scholars have questioned the applicability of Burgess’s concentric model to other cities and time periods (Berry and Rees 1969; Scott 2000). His model was certainly appropriate for Chicago in the 1920s, but while subsequent research has largely supported his theory in terms of neighborhoods being differentiated by socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, the differentiation seldom occurs in the form of concentric zones (Janson 1980; Logan and Molotch 2007; White 1988).
Despite these criticisms, Burgess’s attempt to link immigrant adaptation with urban form had several major implications that transcend historical specificity. First, he used a simple model to link the two most important dimensions for studying human behavior – space and time – in understanding the experiences of immigrants in the city. His argument provides the basic premise for understanding immigrant residential patterns over time. Second, he identified the very important role of socioeconomic resources in the residential patterns of immigrants, arguing that residential location largely reflects the economic standing of immigrants. His argument was based on two assumptions: less desirable neighborhoods are associated with lower housing values; and immigrants, like other citizens, will move to better neighborhoods if their economic resources improve. Third, he postulated that all immigrants would prefer to share neighborhoods with other groups if economic resources allow. Together, these three aspects of Burgess’s work continue to influence contemporary interpretations of the residential patterns of immigrants.
Walter Firey: Sentiment and Symbolism
Walter Firey disagreed with Burgess and provided an alternative perspective for understanding immigrant residential patterns (1945). He argued that in addition to the economic exchange value, residential locations have cultural value: all space is associated with cultural values that in turn can affect people’s choice of location. His analysis focused on two neighborhoods in Boston: an upper-class neighborhood known as Boston Common, and a lower-class Italian neighborhood called North End. He concluded that Italians prefer living near other family members; even members of younger generations that are well assimilated prefer to live with, or in close proximity to, family. Additionally, given their strong social ties, the presence of ethnic organizations, and the celebration of traditional festivals, Italians of different generations are motivated to stay in their ethnic neighborhood despite improvements in their economic resources.
In summary, Firey identified the critical role played by the social dimension in the residential patterns of immigrants. Immigrants and their descendants may continue to live near each other not only because of economic constraints, but also because of social activities and supports among co-ethnic members. The significance of the social dimension adds to the complexity of understanding immigrant residential patterns.
Recent Theoretical Developments
More recently, William Julius Wilson (Wilson 1987; 1996) focused on urban poverty concentration and Douglas Massey and his colleagues (Eggers and Massey 1991; Massey and Denton 1990; Massey et al. 1994) focused on residential segregation patterns among Blacks in large cities in the United States. Their research has renewed interest in understanding how neighborhoods shape the social and economic outcomes of their residents. Three key models have been developed to explain contemporary residential patterns: spatial assimilation, place stratification, and individual preference.
Spatial Assimilation Model
Clarifying residential patterns is a key component of understanding the processes of assimilation and stratification. However, from Robert Park’s (1936a) work on the race relations cycle to Milton Gordon’s (1964) work on the dimensions of assimilation, the spatial dimension was discussed only marginally. More recently, Douglas Massey and his colleagues demonstrated that sharing neighborhoods with other groups is a crucial aspect of assimilation: “Assimilation does not occur in a vacuum. Groups and individuals interact in a physical world. Spatial assimilation is usually viewed as a necessary intermediate step between acculturation and other types of assimilation. Spatial elements strongly affect nearly all stages of assimilation subsequent to acculturation” (Massey and Mullan 1984: 837).
Spatial assimilation is defined as a process by which groups share neighborhoods and live in close proximity. It is an important indicator of social mobility, and moving from one neighborhood to another reflects a group’s experience of social mobility. Because residential locations vary in terms of housing costs, and better quality housing is associated with higher housing value, then individual immigrants with more resources can afford more residential choices. At the same time, neighborhoods with better amenities, schools, and social institutions improve opportunities for residents. Thus, spatial assimilation is an important step to achieving full integration in society.
Massey and his associates have suggested that spatial assimilation creates two residential patterns (Crowder et al. 2011; 2012; South and Crowder 1997; 1998). They linked social mobility with residential patterns, and suggested that the average socioeconomic status of immigrants should be higher in neighborhoods where they are more likely to come in contact with members of the host society. Conversely, the average socioeconomic level of immigrants should be lower in neighborhoods that are farther away from established neighborhoods of majority members of the host society. For example, immigrants residing in Westwood in Los Angeles, California and Rosedale in Toronto, Ontario, usually have more socioeconomic resources because housing is more expensive there. They also have more opportunities to interact with neighbors from the majority group.
Place Stratification Model
The place stratification model moves beyond explaining residential patterns in terms of socioeconomic status of individuals and the demographic distribution of groups (Alba and Logan 1991). Instead, this model treats different levels of government, real estate, and financial institutions, and other housing-related institutions, as playing critical roles in maintaining racial residential segregation. In “American Apartheid,” Massey and Denton (1990) documented how real estate agents steered minority home buyers away from White neighborhoods. Similar patterns of steering minority immigrants toward immigrant neighborhoods have been documented in other immigrant gateway cities, such as Toronto (Fong and Chan 2010). These discriminatory acts treat racial/ ethnic minorities “according to their group’s relative standing in society, hindering the ability of even the socially mobile members to reside in the same communities as comparable whites” (Alba and Logan, 1993: 1391).
