Declining segregation through the lens of neighborhood quality: Does middle-class and affluent status bring equality?

Abstract

Middle- and upper-class status along with suburban residence are together considered symbolic of the American dream. However, the question of whether they mean access to better quality residential environments has gone largely unexplored. This study relies on data from the 2009 panel of the American Housing Survey and focuses on a range of neighborhood conditions, including indicators of physical and social disorder as well as housing value and a neighborhood rating. Contrary to the tenets of the spatial assimilation model, we find that middle-class and affluent status do not consistently lead to superior conditions for all households. Neighborhood circumstances vary considerably based on householder race and ethnicity, with blacks and Hispanics experiencing the greatest disparities from whites. In addition, suburban residence does not attenuate such differences, and in some cases, well-to-do minorities do even worse than whites in neighborhood quality in suburbs.

Connecting Across the Divides of Race/Ethnicity

“…Furthermore, the fact that it is neighborhood factors that are accounting for this urban/suburban difference suggests that many of the neighborhood biases found in cities are also present in suburbs. This offers support to the growing research charting the racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disadvantage of suburban communities (Denton and Gibbons 2013), even among the middle-class residents (Friedman, Gibbons, and Galvan 2014).…”

Regional Differences in Affluent Black and Affluent White Residential Outcomes

“…James Smith identified affluent families as those having a yearly family income of at least four times the official poverty rate (1988). Others have used Smith's approach (Massey ; St. John ; Friedman, Gibbons, and Galvan ). John Logan used a lower threshold for affluence, identifying affluent households as those with incomes greater than 3.5 times the poverty rate (2013).…”

“…Others have used Smith's approach (Massey 1996;St. John 2002;Friedman, Gibbons, and Galvan 2014). John Logan used a lower threshold for affluence, identifying affluent households as those with incomes greater than 3.5 times the poverty rate (2013).…”

“…Researchers commonly present two theories to explain neighborhood attainment: spatial assimilation and place stratification. Spatial assimilation theory argues that as the income, education, language, and other indicators of acculturation and socioeconomic status (SES) of a minority group increases and becomes similar to that of the majority group, there will be greater residential integration and less segregation between each group (Massey and Denton ; Alba and Logan ; Spivak, Bass, and John ; Friedman, Gibbons, and Galvan ). In essence, minority groups can translate their gains in SES to “purchase or buy into” an improved spatial position (for example, suburban neighborhoods) providing them access to better opportunities and services (Spivak, Bass, and John ).…”

“…It maintains that places, such as neighborhoods, have a hierarchical ordering wherein higher‐ordered places provide a better quality of life and greater opportunity than lower‐ordered places (Alba and Logan ; Logan and Alba ). More advantaged social groups use the spatial distance created by the neighborhood hierarchy to help preserve their privileged position within society, thereby limiting minority groups to live within inferior neighborhoods, regardless of ability to “purchase” an improved spatial position (Spivak, Bass, and John ; Friedman, Gibbons, and Galvan ). Indeed, prior research demonstrates that blacks have had limited success in translating their gains in SES to greater integration with whites (Massey and Fischer ; Freeman ).…”