Jargowski 2009

8/7/2019 Jargowski 2009

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jargowski-2009 1/25

Immigrants and Neighbourhoods ofConcentrated Poverty: Assimilation orStagnation?

Paul A. Jargowsky

Immigrants in the United States often live, at least for a time, in neighbourhoods that

have high concentrations of fellow immigrants. Typically, these neighbourhoods also have

high poverty levels and are located near concentrations of the native-born poor.

Conventional wisdom is that living in extremely poor neighbourhoods leads to

‘concentration effects’ that exacerbate the problems of poverty and limit economic

opportunity. While immigrants are not immune to the problems of crime, gangs,

dilapidated housing and failing schools associated with high-poverty neighbourhoods, it

has been argued that immigrant neighbourhoods provide advantages as well. These

include the creation of parallel institutions, vernacular information networks and familiar cultural practices. The analyses presented here provide some support for this

notion, by showing immigrants’ progress from higher- to lower-poverty neighbourhoods

over time. Yet Mexican immigrants do not transition nearly as rapidly, providing support

for the segmented assimilation hypothesis.

Keywords: Immigration; Concentration of Poverty; Barrios; Neighbourhood Effects;

Spatial Assimilation

Introduction

Racial and ethnic groups experience very different levels of neighbourhood socio-

economic disadvantage. A poor black person is over four times more likely to live in

an extremely poor neighbourhood than a poor person who is a non-Hispanic white.

The Hispanic poor are also much more likely than the white poor to live in high-

poverty neighbourhoods. Research on black ghettos would seem to demonstrate that

living in extremely poor neighbourhoods leads to poverty-enhancing ‘concentration

Paul Jargowsky is Professor of Public Policy at the University of Texas at Dallas. Correspondence to: Prof. P.A.

Jargowsky, School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, 800 W. Campbell Rd,Richardson, Texas 75080-3021, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

Vol. 35, No. 7, August 2009, pp. 1129 Á 1151

8/7/2019 Jargowski 2009


8/7/2019 Jargowski 2009


neighbourhood contexts or whether they become mired in high-poverty ones. The

evidence I present supports neighbourhood succession for most immigrant groups

but finds that progression from higher- to lower-poverty neighbourhoods is far

weaker among Mexican immigrants.

Are Barrios Different from Ghettos?

The study of high-poverty inner-city neighbourhoods in the United States has had a

heavy emphasis on African-American neighbourhoods, particularly in New York,

Chicago and other North-Eastern and Mid-Western cities. Given that African-

Americans have had much lower family income and higher poverty rates than whites,

segregated black neighbourhoods also tend to be poor, or at least poorer than

majority neighbourhoods. For this reason, the term ‘ghetto’ became synonymous

with neighbourhoods of poverty, dilapidated housing and social disorganisation.

These connotations strengthened during the 1960s as the result of racial riots, a rapid

rise in violent crime and the emergence of the suburbs as an alternative form of

residential life. Generations of scholars came to regard high-poverty neighbourhoods

as a social problem with consequences for child development and young adult

decision-making (Brooks-Gunn et al . 1997).

Given the low income of most new immigrants, they tend to settle in high-poverty

neighbourhoods where they have access to low-cost housing. As a result, they often

reside in close proximity to existing concentrations of the native-born poor, who are

disproportionately African-American (Portes and Zhou 1993). Segregated low-

income Hispanic neighbourhoods in the United States are traditionally called barrios .Although the term translates simply as ‘neighbourhood’ or ‘village’ in most of the

Spanish-speaking world, within the US, the term implies a low-income neighbour-

hood in which the dominant language is Spanish. Barrios have ‘much in common’

with high-poverty African American neighbourhoods, so that the two are ‘sometimes

equated . . . as sites of neighbourhood disadvantage’ (Eschbach et al . 2004: 1807).

Yet the literature concerning immigrants living in ethnic neighbourhoods,

including barrios , discusses the opposite possibility. Forman (1971: 6) argued that

immigrant concentration was both voluntary and adaptive:

For so many different groups to have followed this practice for over a century suggests that there are positive values to be derived from such concentration. Forthe immigrants such voluntary segregation meant that they could reduce the rate of transition from their native culture to the urban American way of life and thusminimize ‘culture shock’. Immigrants established their own church with services intheir own languages, developed their own native-language newspapers, andestablished their own clubs and mutual-aid societies. If the immigrant faceddifficulties, it was with the support of the centuries-old culture and traditions thathe and his neighbors had carried to the new American urban environment.

Immigrant neighbourhoods are often united by more than country of origin. A

chain of migration sometimes develops, in which immigrants from a particular

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 1131

8/7/2019 Jargowski 2009


region, city or neighbourhood in the country of origin will settle in particular

neighbourhoods in the destination country (Massey et al . 1994). A ready-made set of

kinship and community ties is obviously a benefit to a newly arriving immigrant, and

can provide a significant incentive for cousins and friends to follow in the path of

earlier immigrants (Logan et al. 1994; Portes and Bach 1985).Several studies have found evidence of the advantages conferred by immigrant

ethnic concentration, despite the poverty that naturally accompanies it. For example,

immigrant concentration has ‘sheltered newcomers from the ill-effects that nativist

activities may have had on their lives otherwise’ (Emeka 2006: 7). Within ethnic

neighbourhoods, new immigrants learned about industries and firms in which they

would be welcome from previous immigrants, who also gave them valuable referrals

and advice (Model 1988; Waldinger and Lichter 2003). For example, Hispanics in

barrios are more likely to rely on neighbours to learn about jobs than blacks in

ghettos (Elliott and Sims 2001). Eschbach et al . (2004), examining mortality ratesamong older Mexicans, found that there is a ‘barrio advantage’ that counterbalances

the ‘negative health effects of neighbourhood disadvantage’. A study of immigrants in

Sweden, exogenously assigned by a state housing programme to different locations,

found a 13 per cent advantage in earnings for less-skilled immigrants living in ethnic

neighbourhoods (Edin et al . 2003). Given such considerations, Walks and Bourne

(2006: 273), examining poverty neighbourhoods in Canada with high proportions

of immigrants, have called for ‘a more nuanced interpretation of segregation,

ghettoization, and neighbourhood dynamics’.

In contrast, some authors have argued that the beneficial impact of ethnic

neighbourhoods in the early twentieth century may no longer apply. Portes and Zhou(1993: 83 Á 5) describe a process of ‘segmented assimilation’ that departs from earlier

immigrant processes in several respects. First, in contrast to earlier waves of European

immigrants, newer immigrants have a non-white racial identity (despite Census

Bureau definitions that classify Hispanic Origin as an ethnicity rather than a race).

Second, the concentration of immigrant households in the urban core ‘puts new

minorities in close contact with native-born minorities’. Co-location serves to cement

the identification of new immigrants as racially different from the majority, and

‘exposes second-generation children to the adversarial subculture developed by

marginalised native youths’. Third, changes in the structure of occupations haverestricted the opportunities for upward mobility by reducing the relative proportion

of mid-level jobs available to less-well-educated workers.

Given these conflicting theoretical perspectives, research is needed on the

concentration of poverty among immigrants. This study addresses four distinct

issues, using data from the 1990 and 2000 US Censuses. First, do recent immigrants

experience a concentration of poverty at levels comparable to the native-born poor?

Second, does immigration explain the increasing concentration of poverty in

metropolitan areas with large immigrant flows? Third, do immigrants pass through

high-poverty neighbourhoods and achieve neighbourhood economic assimilation as

implied by the gateway model, or do they persist in residing in barrios over the long

1132 P.A. Jargowsky

8/7/2019 Jargowski 2009


term? Fourth, do all immigrant groups achieve similar levels of spatial assimilation or

does segmented assimilation also extend to neighbourhood economic assimilation?

Immigration and the Concentration of Poverty

The official US poverty line compares a family’s income to a standard amount meant

to represent the cost of basic necessities. It does not have any geographic component,

so the location of a poor family and the poverty of its neighbourhood do not affect

whether an individual family is defined as poor. To operationalise the concept of the

concentration of poverty, it is necessary firstly to define a neighbourhood unit and

then to define how poor a neighbourhood has to be to qualify as high-poverty.

Census tracts are the only practical choice to serve as proxies for neighbourhoods in a

nationwide study. These are small, relatively homogenous areas covering the whole

nation with an average population of around 4,000 persons (White 1987). Consistent

with prior research, a neighbourhood will be designated a high-poverty area if 40 per

cent or more of the residents are poor based on the official US poverty measure

(Jargowsky 1997). This poverty level identifies a relatively small group of extremely

disadvantaged neighbourhoods that often exhibit high levels of social problems.

The Concentration of Poverty among Immigrants

Table 1 provides information both on individual poverty and on residence in high-

poverty neighbourhoods for all US citizens in 2000, based on their nativity and

citizenship status. For comparison purposes, data for several racial and ethnic groupsare also shown. Foreign-born includes all persons born outside the United States,

regardless of country of origin. Foreign-born persons (regardless of income) were

more likely to live in high-poverty neighbourhoods than the native-born by 4.1 to 2.7

per cent, but not as likely as African-Americans (9.2 per cent) or Native Americans

(9.7 per cent). Foreign-born persons who had become naturalised citizens were about

half as likely as non-citizens to live in such areas.

As one might expect, the foreign-born are more likely to be poor based on the

federal poverty guidelines, as shown in the far-right-hand column of Table 1. Nearly

18 per cent of the foreign-born are poor based on family income, compared to 12 percent of the native-born. The concentration of poverty * the proportion of the poor

living in high-poverty neighbourhoods * is far higher for the foreign-born than for

non-Hispanic whites (10.2 compared to 4.1 per cent) but not as high as among

African-Americans (18.6 per cent) or Native Americans (19.4 per cent). Poor

immigrants had about the same chance of residing in high-poverty neighbourhoods

as native-born poor persons generally. These levels may seem low, since they imply

that 90 per cent do not live in high-poverty neighbourhoods. Recall, however, that the

40 per cent threshold level identifies a small set of extremely disadvantaged

neighbourhoods. The average neighbourhood poverty rate experienced by a poor

immigrant in 2000 was 22.3 per cent, well above the national average rate of 12.4, and


8/7/2019 Jargowski 2009


Table 1. Residence in high-poverty neighbourhoods by nativity, citizenship, pover

All persons Incomes below poverty

Total

Inhigh-poverty

areas% in

high-poverty Total

Inhigh-poverty

areas% in

high-poverty T

United States 281,422 7,952 2.8 33,900 3,487 10.3 239

Nativity and citizenshipForeign-born 31,108 1,284 4.1 5,498 561 10.2 25

Naturalisedcitizen 12,543 332 2.6 1,322 118 8.9 1

Not a citizen 18,565 952 5.1 4,176 443 10.6 14Native-born 250,314 6,668 2.7 28,402 2,926 10.3 214

Race/ethnicity Non-Hispanic white 194,514 1,914 1.0 15,414 639 4.1 174Black 34,362 3,173 9.2 8,146 1,512 18.6 24Native American 2,448 239 9.7 608 118 19.4 Asian 10,172 275 2.7 1,322 129 9.8 9Hispanic 35,238 2,301 6.5 7,798 1,074 13.8 26

Note : Population figures in thousands.Source : 2000 US Census, Summary File 3. Some persons do not have a poverty status, so poor'non-poorBtotal.

8/7/2019 Jargowski 2009


this figure includes all immigrants regardless of length of residency or country of

origin.

The level of concentration of poverty among the foreign-born population varies

dramatically from one metropolitan area to another. Table 2 shows the 25

metropolitan areas with the largest foreign-born populations. Los Angeles and New York dominate this skewed distribution, with over three million foreign-born persons

each. Both have foreign-born concentration of poverty rates of around 15 per cent;

however, the native-born concentration of the poor is also around 15 per cent in Los

Angeles, whereas it is double that figure in New York. This huge gap is driven by the

demographic composition of the foreign- and native-born populations in those two

areas, as discussed below.

In Los Angeles, the citizen/non-citizen distinction is substantially more important

than in New York. More than 16 per cent of the non-citizen foreign-born poor live in

high-poverty areas compared to 10 per cent of the foreign-born poor who havebecome citizens there. In contrast, the figures in New York are 15 and 13 per cent.

Table 2. Concentration of poverty among the foreign-born by Metropolitan Area, 2000

% Concentration of the poor

Foreign-born Foreign-born

MSA/PMSA Number Poverty rate% Total Non-citizen Citizen Native-born

1 Los Angeles, CA 3,423,581 21.3 15.1 16.4 10.2 14.72 New York, NY 3,124,065 19.8 14.3 14.9 13.1 30.53 Non-Metropolitan 1,687,319 23.3 7.5 7.3 8.1 5.04 Chicago, IL 1,415,699 12.7 3.7 3.5 4.3 16.35 Miami, FL 1,136,638 18.5 7.2 7.0 7.6 21.96 Houston, TX 851,854 20.3 2.3 2.3 2.0 7.97 Orange County, CA 843,143 16.6 0.5 0.4 1.2 0.88 Wash., DC.MD/VA/WV 826,687 10.6 0.9 0.9 0.7 9.89 Riverside, CA 606,226 20.1 9.4 10.1 7.1 7.2

10 San Diego, CA 599,345 18.8 11.7 13.4 6.0 7.711 Dallas, TX 587,683 19.0 3.1 3.2 2.0 6.412 Oakland, CA 570,063 12.1 4.5 4.0 6.1 7.1

13 San Jose, CA 569,433 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.014 San Francisco, CA 551,549 10.7 0.4 0.5 0.2 2.615 Boston, MA/NH 495,951 14.7 4.8 5.2 3.7 4.016 Phoenix, AZ 453,023 24.7 12.8 13.5 7.9 9.617 Atlanta, GA 420,596 14.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 12.718 Fort Lauderdale, FL 408,757 14.9 1.7 2.0 1.0 5.519 Nassau, NY 390,317 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.020 Newark, NJ 383,167 11.4 3.2 3.1 3.4 15.221 Philadelphia, PA/NJ 353,260 14.6 12.7 14.4 9.8 20.322 Bergen, NJ 350,268 10.4 1.5 1.4 1.8 6.823 Detroit, MI 333,384 13.3 7.7 8.0 7.2 10.724 Seattle, WA 329,544 14.3 3.7 3.0 5.7 2.0

25 Las Vegas, NV/AZ 257,140 15.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.9


8/7/2019 Jargowski 2009


In the remaining metropolitan areas, the highest levels of the foreign-born

concentration of poverty were in Phoenix (12.8 per cent), Philadelphia (12.7 per

cent), and San Diego (11.7 per cent). Among the foreign-born, the concentration of

poverty rate for non-citizens was usually higher than or comparable to the rate for

naturalised citizens. In nine of the top 25 metropolitan areas * including Chicago, New York and Newark, where blacks comprise a large segment of the poor population * the

concentration of poverty among the foreign-born poor was five or more percentage

points lower than for the native-born poor. In contrast, there were no metropolitan

areas where the foreign-born rate was five percentage points higher than the native rate.

Overall, the foreign-born poor are not more concentrated, and in many areas are

substantially less concentrated, than the native-born poor. However, many immi-

grants settle in areas physically contiguous to the native-born poor concentrations.

Figures 1 Á 3 contrast the locations of high-poverty neighbourhoods and immigrant

concentrations for the Los Angeles, New York and Chicago metropolitan areasrespectively. In Los Angeles, many high-poverty neighbourhoods are majority

foreign-born, but about an equal number are majority native-born. More strikingly,

a vast number of majority immigrant neighbourhoods are not high-poverty areas,

but are located in close proximity to them. New York exhibits a different trend, in

which few of the high-poverty neighbourhoods contain a majority of immigrants,

and where the areas of immigrant settlement are for the most part some distance

from the high-poverty areas. In Chicago, almost none of the high-poverty areas are

majority immigrant, but virtually all the majority immigrant neighbourhoods are

contiguous to high-poverty zones. As discussed below, the immigrants to these three

metropolitan areas come from different regions of origin, partly explaining thedifferent settlement patterns.

In summary, the concentration of poverty was less pronounced among the foreign-

born as a group in 2000 than one might have expected, at least when immigrants are

not disaggregated by year of arrival and country of origin. Not clear from the analysis

thus far, however, is whether the low average level of concentration among the

foreign-born is characteristic of the group generally or reflects an assimilation

process. One caveat to this conclusion is that immigrants often settle in neighbour-

hoods that, while not high-poverty in themselves, are in close proximity to high-

poverty neighbourhoods settled by the native-born poor. A question to be taken up inlater analysis is whether cohorts of immigrants, defined by year of entry into the US,

remain in concentrated poverty neighbourhoods or upgrade to better ones over time.

First, however, the impact of immigration on the extent of concentrated poverty will

be examined.

The Impact of Immigration on Changes in the Concentration of Poverty

While a small percentage of immigrants settle in high-poverty neighbourhoods, their

numbers are still large enough to affect the overall extent of the concentration of

poverty. Nationally, the overall number of residents of high-poverty ghettos, barrios

1136 P.A. Jargowsky

8/7/2019 Jargowski 2009


Figure 1. Percentage foreign-born and neighbourhood poverty rates: Los Ang

8/7/2019 Jargowski 2009


and slums declined by 2.4 million persons (23.5 per cent) between 1990 and 2000,

falling from 10.4 million to 8.0 million. However, the decline would have been even

larger had not new immigrants taken the place of persons who resided in such

neighbourhoods in 1990. Nearly 629,000 residents of high-poverty neighbourhoods in

2000 were new immigrants who arrived in the United States during the 1990s. Therewere 2.7 million fewer native-born persons living in high-poverty neighbourhoods in

Figure 2. Percentage foreign-born and neighbourhood poverty rates: New York Metropolitan Area, 2000

Figure 3. Percentage foreign-born and neighbourhood poverty rates: Chicago Metro-politan Area, 2000

1138 P.A. Jargowsky

8/7/2019 Jargowski 2009


2000 than in 1990 and 400,000 fewer foreign-born persons who arrived prior to 1990.

Other things being equal, without new immigrants, the total decline in population of

these high-poverty neighbourhoods would have been 3.1 million (30 per cent).

While the majority of metropolitan areas experienced declines, there were a

number that experienced increases in the number of residents of high-poverty ghettosand barrios . Figure 4 shows the demographic source of these increases for the

metropolitan areas with the largest rise in high-poverty neighbourhood population.

Los Angeles had the largest increase by far * nearly 300,000 persons * both native-

born poor residing in high-poverty neighbourhoods and newly arriving immigrants.

The number of immigrants from prior cohorts living in high-poverty areas also

increased, but constituted a much smaller share of the total increase.

Six of the top ten metropolitan areas in terms of the size of the increase in high-

poverty neighbourhood population are located in California. In each of these, the

increase is composed of a combination of native-born and new immigrants, with amuch smaller role or even a decrease in the number of immigrants from earlier

cohorts, i.e. before 1990. In contrast, in the Washington DC metropolitan area, new

immigrants do not drive the increase in the high-poverty population. In McAllen,

TX, a metropolitan area close to the US/Mexico border, almost all the increase is in

new immigrants, partially offset by a decline in prior immigrants * the pattern that is

the most consistent with the idea of Latino barrios as gateway communities.

While many of the metropolitan areas with large increases in high-poverty

neighbourhood populations were destinations for immigrants, not all metropolitan

areas with a high flow of immigrants experienced an increase in the concentration of

poverty. Figure 5 shows the components of the change in the population of high-

poverty areas for the metropolitan areas with the largest overall influx of immigrants

between 1990 and 2000. New York, for example, had more than 100,000 new

immigrants who lived in high-poverty areas in 2000, partially offsetting a decline of a

0 100,000 200,000 300,000

Middlesex, NJ

Chico, CA

Providence, RI/MA

McAllen, TX

San Diego, CA

Bakersfield, CA

Wash., DC/MD/VA/WV

Riverside, CA

Fresno, CA

Los Angeles, CA

1990s immigrants

Prior immigrants

Native-born

Figure 4. Source of increase in high-poverty neighbourhood population: Metropolitan

Areas with largest increases


8/7/2019 Jargowski 2009


similar number of native-born persons and prior immigrants. While Chicago, Miami,

Houston and Washington DC all had many new immigrants, few of them settled in

high-poverty neighbourhoods.

The prior discussion oversimplifies the analysis to a certain degree because the

trends in the high-poverty residence of foreign-born and native-born persons may

not be independent. For example, if a neighbourhood has a poverty rate of 30 per

cent among the native-born, and then a sufficient number of poor immigrants

entered the neighbourhood, the average poverty rate of the neighbourhood couldbe driven above the 40 per cent threshold. In that case, all the residents of the

neighbourhood, regardless of immigration status, would be added to the count of the

high-poverty neighbourhood population.

In fact, the reality is more complex. Nationally, the census-tract-level correlation

between the native-born and foreign-born poverty rates is a surprisingly low 0.495.

Immigrants with incomes above the poverty level actually tend to reduce poverty in

neighbourhoods with high native-born poverty rates. Table 3 addresses this issue by

showing the count of high-poverty census tracts and the population residing in them

when neighbourhoods are classified by the overall poverty rate, the poverty rate for the

native-born only, and the poverty rate for the foreign-born only. As might be expected,

more than twice as many census tracts are above the 40 per cent threshold based on the

foreign-born poverty rate compared to the overall poverty rate (5,489 compared to

2,510). However, it is also true that there are more census tracts above the 40 per cent

threshold using the native-born poverty rate (2,663 compared to 2,510). When

neighbourhoods are classified by the native-born poverty rate, 8.5 million persons

reside in high-poverty areas compared to 8.0 million using the overall poverty rate.

Therefore, immigrant settlement patterns actually attenuate the concentration of

poverty. In the 2,663 census tracts where the native-born poverty rate is above 40 per

cent, more than half have foreign-born poverty rates below 40 per cent and in 280

-200,000 -100,000 0 100,000 200,000 300,000

Atlanta, GA

San Jose, CA

Dallas, TX

Orange County, CA

Wash., DC/MD/VA/WV

Houston, TX

Miami, FL

Chicago, IL

Los Angeles, CA

New York, NY

1990s immigrants

Prior immigrants

Native-born

Figure 5. Source of change in high-poverty neighbourhood population: Metropolitan

Areas with largest immigrant influx

1140 P.A. Jargowsky

8/7/2019 Jargowski 2009


tracts the lower poverty of the foreign-born is sufficient to bring the overall poverty

level below 40 per cent. While 127 census tracts are also pushed above the 40 per cent

threshold by poverty among immigrants, the former effect is more pronounced. An

even more dramatic pattern is observed in Los Angeles and New York, where there are

substantially more census tracts that would be classified as high-poverty neighbour-

hoods by the native-born poverty rate than by either the overall or the foreign-born

poverty rate.

In summary, immigrants did contribute to the increasing population of high-

poverty neighbourhoods in metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles. Moreover, inmetropolitan areas like New York and Chicago, immigrants offset declines in the

population of high-poverty areas due to the out-migration of the native-born and

earlier waves of immigrants. However, the immigrant poor also settle in a less-

concentrated pattern than the native-born poor and actually reduce the measured

level of the concentration of poverty.

Neighbourhood Socio-Economic Assimilation

Immigrants and members of racial minority groups must overcome many hurdles to

fully assimilate into the social and economic mainstream of society. While the exact

Table 3. Concentration of poverty under alternative poverty rates

High-poverty areas defined by poverty rate:

Overall Native-born Foreign-born

United StatesCensus tracts 2,510 2,663 5,489Population

Non-Hispanic 7,952,260 8,456,013 20,342,696White 1,913,547 1,900,511 11,460,925Black 3,091,805 3,313,409 4,502,871

Hispanic 2,301,296 2,565,303 3,331,459

Los AngelesCensus tracts 137 189 116Population

Non-Hispanic 559,574 793,846 463,443

White 35,472 46,261 37,678Black 95,868 122,983 88,118

Hispanic 378,471 550,768 292,870

New York Census tracts 253 322 138Population

Non-Hispanic 944,865 1,246,530 482,823White 89,093 116,946 47,302Black 346,661 450,755 186,766

Hispanic 463,878 615,589 222,459


8/7/2019 Jargowski 2009


meaning of assimilation and the process by which it occurs has been a controversial

topic, most agree that it is a multidimensional phenomenon that occurs over several

generations (Gordon 1964). Its spatial aspects were first highlighted by Robert Park

(1926), who argued that ‘residential mobility follows from the acculturation and

social mobility of individuals and that residential mobility is an intermediate step onthe way to structural assimilation’ (Alba and Nee 1997: 836). On the other hand, the

lack of spatial assimilation can be a bar to residential and social mobility and make

structural assimilation exceedingly difficult (Massey and Mullan 1984: 837). This

‘chicken and egg’ relationship is further complicated by several distinct definitions of

what constitutes spatial assimilation. For example, the term is sometimes used to

refer to residential integration with the majority group and at others to refer to

having access to desirable neighbourhoods and high-quality housing, even if those

neighbourhoods are still segregated (Alba and Nee 1997).

In this paper, I examine a single aspect of spatial assimilation, namely the ability of immigrants to move from higher- to lower-poverty neighbourhoods. I do not take a

position here on whether such movements are the cause of or are caused by economic,

social or cultural assimilation. My concern is to document whether it is occurring, and

if so, how rapidly and for which immigrant groups. Whether cause or consequence,

the spatial assimilation of immigrants into less-poor neighbourhoods would be an

indicator of progress toward a broader conception of assimilation, and the lack of it

over decades or generations would indicate that the assimilation process had stalled.

The foreign-born are a diverse group, arriving in the US under different

circumstances and with highly varied human and social capital. Ideally, we wouldfully disaggregate the foreign-born by region of origin, year of entry and poverty

status, among other variables. However, the census-tract data needed to study poverty

at the neighbourhood level impose some restrictions on this type of analysis. Summary

File 3 (SF3) of the US census is needed to identify high-poverty areas at the census-

tract level. SF3 comes in aggregated form as tables summarising variables for each

geographic unit, not as individual data. The Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS)

does provide individual-level data and is often used for research on immigrants, but it

does not identify census tracts due to confidentiality concerns. So the PUMS cannot be

used to study the concentration of poverty among immigrants. Therefore, we are

limited to the tables as they are presented in the summary data, and it is not possible to

create new cross-tabulations or change the categories from those given.

Unfortunately, the 1990 census does not include a table comparable to the 2000

Census table (PCT 51) that gives poverty status by place of birth and citizenship

status. Moreover, the tables providing information on year of entry and country of

origin are not cross-tabulated with poverty status. Thus, in the analysis that follows, I

can only present figures on the proportion of all members of a particular group

residing in high-poverty zones, regardless of poverty status, not the proportion of the

poor, as I would prefer. Generally, the figure on residence in high-poverty areas is two

to four times higher for the poor members of a group than for the group overall.

1142 P.A. Jargowsky

8/7/2019 Jargowski 2009


Race and Ethnicity

Table 4 shows the number and proportion of immigrants living in high-poverty areas

as well as the average neighbourhood poverty rate by nativity and citizenship status

for racial and ethnic subgroups. There are striking contrasts between immigrants by

race. For example, non-Hispanic white foreign-born persons almost never live in

high-poverty neighbourhoods, and the average poverty rate for this group is 10 per

cent, below the national average of 12.5 per cent. Among blacks, the foreign-born are

substantially less likely to live in high-poverty neighbourhoods (5.4 compared to 9.5

per cent). Nevertheless, they are nearly five times more likely to live concentrated

poverty areas than the white foreign-born, and on average they experience much

higher neighbourhood poverty levels (about 18 per cent). Hispanic foreign and

native-born, at 6.3 and 6.7 per cent respectively, are about equally likely to live in

Table 4. Neighbourhood poverty by race/ethnicity, nativity and citizenship, 2000

Race/ethnicity Total

No. inhigh-poverty

areas

% inhigh-poverty

areas

Averageneighbourhood

poverty rate

All races/ethnicities 281,421,906 7,952,260 2.8 12.5Foreign-born 31,107,889 1,283,993 4.1 15.6

Naturalised citizen 12,542,626 322,278 2.6 12.9Not a citizen 18,565,263 951,715 5.1 17.4

Native-born 250,314,017 6,668,267 2.7 12.2

Non-Hispanic white 194,514,140 1,913,547 1.0 9.8Foreign-born 6,840,532 80,967 1.2 10.0


Native-born 187,673,608 1,832,580 1.0 9.8

Black 34,361,740 3,173,016 9.2 20.9Foreign-born 2,099,865 112,721 5.4 17.7

Naturalised citizen 934,367 41,671 4.5 16.8Not a citizen 1,165,498 71,050 6.1 18.5

Native-born 32,261,875 3,060,295 9.5 21.1

Asian 10,171,820 274,567 2.7 11.9Foreign-born 7,012,202 184,100 2.6 12.1


Native-born 3,159,618 90,467 2.9 11.4

Hispanic 35,238,481 2,301,296 6.5 19.0Foreign-born 14,157,817 885,187 6.3 19.8


Native-born 21,080,664 1,416,109 6.7 18.5

Source : 2000 US Census, Summary File 3, Tables P88, PCT63a-PCT63i.


8/7/2019 Jargowski 2009


high-poverty neighbourhoods, and have an average neighbourhood poverty level of

around 20 per cent. Of course, all these figures would be much higher if we could

examine poor members of these groups separately.

Period of Arrival

The 1990 and 2000 Censuses both identify foreign-born persons by year of entry into

the United States, although the years are grouped differently, with more detail given

in 1990. Redstone and Massey (2004) have shown that census respondents often

interpret this question in different ways, especially in the context of multiple visits to

the US and returns to their native country. Nevertheless, they also show that errors

occur in both directions and analyses based on year of entry do not show a particular

bias in one direction or the other due to mis-reporting. The 1990 table gives more

detail before 1970, whereas the 2000 table has only one category for all immigrantswho entered before 1970. Nevertheless, three comparable cohorts of immigrants can

be constructed, allowing a weak form of longitudinal analysis: before 1970, 1970 Á 79

and 1980 Á 89.

Table 5 combines information from both sources and shows the number of

foreign-born persons by their year of entry into the United States and the proportion

residing in extremely poor neighbourhoods in 1990 and 2000. The table reveals a

wealth of information with just a few numbers. First, 5.3 per cent of all immigrants

lived in the highest-poverty neighbourhoods in 1990. Consistent with the national

trend in the 1990s, the proportion of immigrants living in concentrated poverty areas

declined to 4.1 per cent in 2000 (a 23 per cent decline in the proportion residing insuch neighbourhoods).

Looking down the 1990 column, we compare the residence in high-poverty

neighbourhoods by year of entry. We see a clear pattern of assimilation looking across

the cohorts. Fewer than 3 per cent of pre-1960 immigrants lived in high-poverty

zones in 1990, and more recent immigrants are consistently more likely to have lived

in high-poverty areas in 1990. The most recent group at the time of the 1990 census,

those who arrived from 1980 to 1989, lived in high-poverty areas 6.8 per cent of the

time. A similar pattern is observed as one reads down the year 2000 column.

Figure 6 shows the proportions living in concentrated poverty areas in 2000 for thedifferent arrival cohorts for 12 metropolitan areas. Regardless of year of entry,

immigrants are far more concentrated in some metropolitan areas * such as McAllen

TX and Fresno CA * than in other cities. These differences are probably driven by

differences in the country of origin of the immigrants in that area and by local

differences in housing markets. Despite very different levels across the cities, within

any given city, it is usually true that the longer a person has been in the United States,

the less likely he or she is to live in a high-poverty neighbourhood.

On the other hand, immigrants who arrived at different times might have differed

from each other prior to arrival. To rule out this possibility, we have to follow a given

cohort of immigrants (defined by year of entry) over time. Three comparable cohorts

1144 P.A. Jargowsky

8/7/2019 Jargowski 2009


are shown in bold in the central panel reading across the rows of Table 5. For

example, the table shows that 6.2 million immigrants arrived before 1970. In 1990,

members of this cohort resided in high-poverty neighbourhoods 3.1 per cent of the

Table 5. Residence in high-poverty neighbourhoods by entry cohort, 1999 Á 2000

1990 census 2000 census 1990 Á 2000

Year of entry

Totalnumberentering

% residing inhigh-poverty

neighbourhood

Totalnumberentering

% residing inhigh-poverty

neighbourhood % change

Before 1950 1,842,688 2.91950 Á 59 1,599,021 2.91960 Á 69 2,792,565 3.4

Before 1970 6,234,274 3.1 4,778,099 2.1 (31.901970 Á 79 4,869,415 5.4 4,686,752 3.5 (35.401980 Á 89 8,663,627 6.8 8,464,762 4.6 (32.90

1990 Á 2000 13,178,276 4.8

Total 19,767,316 5.3 31,107,889 4.1 (22.59

Source : 1990 and 2000 US censuses.

0 .2 .4 .6 0 .2 .4 .6 0 .2 .4 .6 0 .2 .4 .6

Bakersfield, CA El Paso, TX Fresno, CA Los Angeles, CA

McAllen, TX Minneapolis, MN/WI New York, NY Phoenix, AZ

Providence, RI/MA San Antonio, TX San Diego, CA Stockton, CA

All immigrants Entry before 1970

Entry 1970 – 79 Entry 1980 – 89

Entry 1990 – 2000

Figure 6. Concentration of poverty among immigrants, by year of entry: cities with morethan 100,000 immigrants, 2000. Graphs by Metropolitan Area (MSA/PMSA)


8/7/2019 Jargowski 2009


time, but this figure had declined by nearly a third by 2000. Note that the 2000 census

only registers 4.8 million persons as having arrived in the US before 1970. The major

decline in the size of this cohort probably reflects mortality; those who immigrated

before 1950 would have been 70 years old by 2000 if they were 20 years old on arrival.

Some may therefore have returned to their country of origin, perhaps to retire.The next cohort are those who arrived in the 1970s. Of this group, 5.4 per cent

resided in high-poverty neighbourhoods in 1990, falling about a third to 3.5 per cent

by 2000. Of those immigrating in the 1980s, the high-poverty neighbourhood

percentage dropped by a third from 6.8 in 1990 to 4.6 in 2000. The size of the more

recent cohorts drops only slightly; presumably, mortality is a much smaller factor for

the more recent immigrants.

There is some evidence in Table 5 supporting the assimilation of immigrants who

initially live in high-poverty zones, but also some evidence against it. On the positive

side, we see that, at a given point in time, more recent cohorts are less likely to live inneighbourhoods of concentrated poverty. We also see that a given cohort is less likely

to live in such a neighbourhood over time. Both considerations support a conclusion

that residence in high-poverty neighbourhoods is a transitory phenomenon and that

immigrants assimilate geographically to neighbourhoods of lower poverty levels

despite initial high-poverty neighbourhood residence.

On the other hand, the concentration of poverty was declining for all groups

between 1990 and 2000, regardless of immigration status, so we also need to take into

account period effects. We can do this, for example, by comparing along diagonals:

the newest immigrants in 1990 (those who arrived in the 1980s) compared to the

newest immigrants in 2000 (those who arrived in the 1990s). There is a comparablereduction in the tendency to reside in high-poverty neighbourhoods, dropping from

6.8 per cent for the 1980s cohort in 1990 to 4.8 per cent for the 1990s cohort in 2000,

a 29 per cent reduction. However, comparing the 1970s cohort in 1990 to the 1980s

cohort in 2000 shows a 15 per cent reduction. The existence of such a strong period

effect somewhat calls into question the evidence of assimilation derived from

following individual cohorts from 1990 to 2000.

Region of Origin

The evidence above aggregated foreign-born persons from all nations of origin. Yet

immigrants from different continents and nations bring vastly different amounts of

personal and cultural capital with them. They have to go through different processes

and filters to gain entry, and are treated differently once they arrive (Portes and

Rumbaut 2001). Perlmann argues that national origin is crucial to understanding the

‘networks, niches, modes of incorporation, historical context, and the like’ that affect

the assimilation of different immigrants groups (2005: 8).

Figure 7 shows the average neighbourhood poverty rate in 2000 of immigrants

from seven broad regions of origin and three periods of arrival in the United States.

European immigrants lived in the least-poor neighbourhoods, and Mexicans in the

1146 P.A. Jargowsky

8/7/2019 Jargowski 2009


poorest. All immigrant groups except Mexicans showed a pattern that could be

considered as spatial assimilation: the immigrants from earlier periods live in

progressively less-poor neighbourhoods. The trend is even more dramatic for the

proportion who lived in concentrated poverty neighbourhoods, as shown in Figure 8.

In fact, a higher proportion of recent Caribbean immigrants lived in the poorest

neighbourhoods, but the rate is much lower for Caribbean immigrants who have

been around longer. In contrast, Mexican immigrants had about the same probability of high-poverty neighbourhood residence, and the same average neighbourhood

poverty rate, regardless of period of entry.

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

E u r o p e A s

i a A f r i c a

C a r i b b e

a n

M e x i c

o

O t h e

r C e n

. A m .

S . A m e

r i c a

Before 1980

1980 – 89

1990 – 2000

Figure 7. Average neighbourhood poverty rate in 2000, by region of origin and period of immigration

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

E u r o p e

A s i a

A f r i c a

C a r i b b e

a n

M e x i c

o

O t h e

r C e n

. A m .

S . A m e

r i c a

Before 1980

1980 – 89

1990 – 2000

Figure 8. Probability of living in a high-poverty neighbourhood in 2000, by region of

origin and year of entry


8/7/2019 Jargowski 2009


Conclusion

The large volume of immigration in recent decades, particularly that from Mexico,

has aroused strong passions in the American electorate. Opponents of immigration

contend that recent immigration from Mexico and Central America is so massive that

it will breed a Latino underclass and ‘defeat the American tradition of assimilation’

(MacDonald 2004). On the other hand, immigration can also provide support for

neighbourhoods that otherwise would have been depleted by out-migration and

abandonment (Muller 1993; Winnick 1990).

The reality is complex. Immigrants in general experience more concentration of

poverty than non-Hispanic whites, but much less than do minority groups who

constitute the bulk of the native-born poor in most urban areas. The impact of

immigration on inner-city poor neighbourhoods is more ambiguous than many

people assume and varies dramatically from one metropolitan area to another. The

immigrant poor are less concentrated than the native-born poor, and when the twosettlement patterns are overlaid, as they often are, the measured level of the

concentration of poverty is actually reduced. In other words, while immigration

undoubtedly raises poverty rates in some areas, it also tends to reduce poverty rates in

many of the poorest inner-city communities.

A key issue addressed here is the extent to which immigrant populations

experience geographic assimilation, i.e. do they migrate from higher- to lower-

poverty neighbourhoods over time? The Chicago School argued that population

groups would seek to convert economic and social gains into spatial amenities by

moving to neighbourhoods at higher levels in the urban hierarchy (Park 1926). Morerecently, there has been a focus on the role of spatial patterns in facilitating or

hampering social mobility by affecting the ability of a group to access public services,

economic opportunities and information networks (Jargowsky 1997; Massey 1990;

Massey and Denton 1993; Wilson 1987). Either way, the degree of spatial integration

of immigrant groups is a crucial indicator of the extent to which the American

experience of assimilation continues among more recent waves of immigrants. The

data presented here suggest that, while most immigrants experience assimilation in

terms of neighbourhood poverty rates, Mexican immigrants seem to remain in

impoverished neighbourhood contexts for decades. Thus, the experience of Mexicanimmigrants, at least those who arrive poor and initially settle in high-poverty barrios ,

is consistent with the segmented assimilation hypothesis.

Prior theoretical and empirical research has suggested that the concentration of

immigrants can serve a useful purpose, helping to ease their transition into a new

society, especially for those who do not speak the language of the dominant group.

While immigrants are not immune to the problems of crime, gangs, drug and alcohol

abuse, dilapidated housing and failing schools that plague high-poverty areas, it has

been argued that immigrant neighbourhoods provide advantages as well, at least for

earlier generations of immigrants. These include the creation of parallel institutions,

vernacular information networks and familiar cultural practices that could ease the

1148 P.A. Jargowsky

8/7/2019 Jargowski 2009


transition to the new society. The analyses presented here provide some support for

this notion overall, by showing that many immigrant groups move from higher- to

lower-poverty neighbourhoods over time.

At the same time, Mexican immigrants do not appear to experience neighbour-

hood socio-economic assimilation, at least not at the same rate as immigrants fromother countries and regions of origin. The strong suggestion is that the concentration

of poverty among certain immigrant groups, particularly those who arrive with low

levels of human capital, can have the same types of negative consequence as have long

been noted in the neighbourhoods of the native-born poor. Much more research is

needed on the neighbourhood effects in immigrant communities, particularly on the

mechanisms that seem to protect some immigrant groups while leaving others

vulnerable. Another question with important policy implications is the extent to

which the children of immigrants are affected when they reside with their parents in

high-poverty immigrant enclaves. A full appreciation of the consequences of the

concentration of poverty among immigrants and the implications of those effects for

economic and social assimilation will require an understanding of the effects of poor

neighbourhoods on the second and subsequent generations.

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented at ‘Local Contexts and the Prospects for

the Second Generation’, in Seattle, Washington, 20 October 2006. The West Coast

Poverty Center supported and encouraged this research. Helpful comments and

suggestions have been provided by Gunnar Almgren, Kurt Beron, Shauna Carlisle,

Marie Chevrier, Kyle Crowder, Mark Ellis, Magnus Lofstrom, Robert Plotnick,

Alejandro Portes, Hilary Silver and a JEMS referee.

References

Alba, R. and Nee, V. (1997) ‘Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration’,

International Migration Review, 31(4): 826 Á 74.

Brooks-Gunn, J., Greg, J.D. and Aber, J. (eds) (1997) Neighbourhood Poverty. Vol. 1, Context and

Consequences for Children . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Edin, P., Fredriksson, P. and Aslund, O. (2003) ‘Ethnic enclaves and the economic success of immigrants: evidence from a natural experiment’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118 (1):

329 Á 57.

Elliott, J. and Sims, M. (2001) ‘Ghettos and barrios: the impact of neighbourhood poverty and race

on job matching among Blacks and Latinos’, Social Problems, 48 (3): 341 Á 61.

Emeka, A. (2006) ‘Context of reception and the incidence of poverty among children of recent

immigrants’. Paper presented at the West Coast Poverty Center, University of Washington, 20

October.

Eschbach, K., Ostir, G., Patel, K., Markides, K. and Goodwin, S. (2004) ‘Neighbourhood context

and mortality among older Mexican Americans: is there a barrio advantage?’, American

Journal of Public Health, 94 (10): 1807 Á 12.

Forman, R. (1971) Black Ghettos, White Ghettos, and Slums . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Gordon, M. (1964) Assimilation in American Life . New York: Oxford University Press.


8/7/2019 Jargowski 2009


Gramlich, E., Laren, D. and Sealand, N. (1992) ‘Moving into and out of poor urban areas’, Journal of

Policy Analysis and Management, 11(2): 273 Á 87.

Jargowsky, P. (1997) Poverty and Place: Ghettos, Barrios, and the American City . New York: Russell

Sage.

Jargowsky, P. (2003) Stunning Progress, Hidden Problems: The Dramatic Decline of Concentrated

Poverty in the 1990s . Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Jargowsky, P. and Bane, M. (1991) ‘Ghetto poverty in the United States: 1970 to 1980’, in Jencks, C.

and Peterson, P. (eds) The Urban Underclass . Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution,

235 Á 73.

Kingsley, G. and Pettit, K. (2003) Concentrated Poverty: A Change in Course . Washington, DC: The

Urban Institute.

Lobo, A., Flores, J. and Salvo, J. (2002) ‘The impact of Hispanic growth on the racial/ethnic

composition of New York City neighbourhoods’, Urban Affairs Review, 37 (5): 703 Á 27.

Logan, J., Alba, R. and McNulty, T. (1994) ‘Ethnic economies in metropolitan regions: Miami and

beyond’, Social Forces, 72 (3): 691 Á 724.

MacDonald, H. (2004) ‘A new Latino underclass’, The Dallas Morning News , 25 July. Online at

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_dmn-new_latino_underclass.htm.Massey, D. (1990) ‘American apartheid: segregation and the making of the underclass’, American

Journal of Sociology, 96 (2): 329 Á 57.

Massey, D. and Denton, N. (1993) American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the

Underclass . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Massey, D. and Mullan, B. (1984) ‘Processes of Hispanic and black spatial assimilation’, American

Journal of Sociology, 89 (4): 836 Á 73.

Massey, D., Goldring, L. and Durand, J. (1994) ‘Continuities in transnational migration: an analysis

of nineteen Mexican communities’, American Journal of Sociology, 102 (6): 939 Á 99.

Model, S. (1988) ‘Mode of job entry and the ethnic-composition of firms: early 18th-century

migrants to New York City’, Sociological Forum, 3(1): 110 Á 27.

Muller, T. (1993) Immigrants and the American City . New York: New York University Press.Perlmann, J. (2005) Italians Then, Mexicans Now: Immigrant Origins and Second Generation

Progress: 1890 Á 2000 . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Park, R.E. (1926) ‘The urban community as a spatial pattern and a moral order’, in Burgess, E.W.

(ed.) The Urban Community . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 3 Á 18.

Portes, A. and Bach, R. (1985) Latin Journey: Cuban and Mexican Immigrants in the United States .

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Portes, A. and Rumbaut, R. (2001) Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation . Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Portes, A. and Zhou, M. (1993) ‘The new second generation: segmented assimilation and its

variants’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530 : 74 Á 96.

Quillian, L. (1999) ‘Migration patterns and the growth of high-poverty neighbourhoods, 1970 Á

1990’, American Journal of Sociology, 105 (1): 1 Á 37.

Quillian, L. (2003) ‘How long are exposures to poor neighbourhoods? The long-term dynamics of

entry and exit from poor neighbourhoods’, Population Research and Policy Review, 22 (3):

221 Á 49.

Redstone, I. and Massey, D. (2004) ‘Coming to stay: an analysis of the US census question on

immigrants’ year of arrival’, Demography, 41(4): 721 Á 38.

Singer, A. (2004) The Rise of New Immigrant Gateways . Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Waldinger, R. (1989) ‘Immigration and urban change’, Annual Review of Sociology, 15 : 211 Á 32.

Waldinger, R. and Lichter, M. (2003) How the Other Half Works: Immigration and the Social

Organization of Labor . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Walks, R. and Bourne, L. (2006) ‘Ghettos in Canada’s cities? Racial segregation, ethnic enclaves and

poverty concentration in Canadian urban areas’, The Canadian Geographer, 50 (3): 273 Á 97.

1150 P.A. Jargowsky

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_dmn-new_latino_underclass.htm

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_dmn-new_latino_underclass.htm

8/7/2019 Jargowski 2009


White, M. (1987) American Neighborhoods and Residential Differentiation . New York: Russell Sage

Foundation for the National Committee for Research on the 1980 Census, c1987.

Wilson, W. (1987) The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner-City, the Underclass and Public Policy .

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Winnick, L. (1990) New People in Old Neighbourhoods: The Role of Immigrants in Rejuvenating New

York’s Communities . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Yu, Z. (2004) ‘Immigration and sprawl: residential location choice in three gateway metropolitan

areas of the United States’. Paper prepared for the 2004 ACSP Annual Conference in Portland,

Oregon, 21 Á 24 October.


8/7/2019 Jargowski 2009


Jargowski 2009

Documents

Transcript of Jargowski 2009