Koreans in Greater Los Angeles: Socioeconomic Polarization, Ethnic Attachment, and Residential Patterns

Korean Americans in Los Angeles: Decentralized Concentration and Socio‐spatial Disparity

“…First, Koreans exhibited patterns of “decentralized concentration”—a concept discussed earlier by Allen and Turner (), and that Koreans’ suburbanization processes went hand‐in‐hand with the formation of suburban ethnic clusters. As indicated by Laux and Thieme (), Korean immigrants, regardless of their residential locations, had strong affiliations for Korean ethnic churches and ethnic businesses, and our study reemphasizes these since we found vibrant clusters in Koreatown as well as in suburbs, validated by a recent field visit by the coauthor. Second, our analysis partially supports the applicability of spatial assimilation theory in that the spatial integration of Koreans with the host society occurred with gains in socioeconomic success; our analyses found numerous dispersed Korean Americans in white suburban neighborhoods (Table ), aligning along Allen and Turner's () and Laux and Thieme's () corroboration that the Koreans residing in more dispersed locations generally displayed higher levels of socioeconomic assimilation.…”

“…As indicated by Laux and Thieme (), Korean immigrants, regardless of their residential locations, had strong affiliations for Korean ethnic churches and ethnic businesses, and our study reemphasizes these since we found vibrant clusters in Koreatown as well as in suburbs, validated by a recent field visit by the coauthor. Second, our analysis partially supports the applicability of spatial assimilation theory in that the spatial integration of Koreans with the host society occurred with gains in socioeconomic success; our analyses found numerous dispersed Korean Americans in white suburban neighborhoods (Table ), aligning along Allen and Turner's () and Laux and Thieme's () corroboration that the Koreans residing in more dispersed locations generally displayed higher levels of socioeconomic assimilation. Third, unlike traditional ethnic enclaves that offered only temporary haven for new immigrants, the downtown Koreatown still remained a vibrant center for Korean immigrants.…”

“…However, ethnoburbs, unlike enclaves, are not simply clusters with an over‐presence of one minority group; instead, an ethnoburb situates itself in a multiethnic neighborhood with a significant concentration of one racial/ethnic minority group (Li , 10). Ethnoburbs often have no clearly defined neighborhood boundaries, and they could often range across several suburban areas, with arbitrary boundaries, such as those in the Korean suburban clusters in Greater Los Angeles (Laux and Thieme , 102).…”

“…Earlier studies by Clark andBlue (2004), Fischer (2003), and Iceland (2004) suggested strong roles of class in defining residential segregation. In this regard, Laux and Thieme's (2006) analyses of Korean immigrants in the Greater Los Angeles area suggested the applicability of segmented assimilation theory in explaining their suburbanization processes between 1980 and 2000.…”

“…Previous scholars have analyzed Korean immigrants in the Los Angeles area by using individual‐level public use microdata or data collected via phone interviews that explored the relationship between ethnicity‐based attributes and their residential choices (Allen and Turner ; Laux and Thieme ). These studies primarily focused on individual level assimilation attributes such as language ability, educational attainment, income, and length of stay, and hence the neighborhood and community‐based characteristics of Koreans were largely masked.…”