Spatial mismatch beyond black and white: Levels and determinants of job access among Asian and Hispanic subpopulations

Abstract

United States (US) based research suggests that distance between residency and employment constrains labour market outcomes for black Americans. Work on this phenomenon, termed spatial mismatch, suggests that residential segregation from whites shapes labour market outcomes among blacks by restricting access to job-dense suburbs. However, few studies examine patterns and drivers of spatial mismatch among Asian and Hispanic subpopulations. Using data on job counts from the 2010 Zip Code Business Patterns data set and on population counts from the 2010 US decennial Censuses, I estimate spatial mismatch for the largest ethnoracial groups in the USA: black, white, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese Americans. To measure spatial mismatch, I create indices of dissimilarity between jobs and residency for all Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) with available data. Estimates of spatial mismatch based on panethnic categories mask subpopulation heterogeneity. Most subgroups experience higher spatial mismatch than indicated by the panethnic category. The results also show novel racial differences: the average Vietnamese and Cuban American experience higher spatial mismatch than the average black American. Segregation from whites is a central predictor of exposure to spatial mismatch across all minority groups, though findings suggest that this relationship is not driven by suburbanisation.

The influence of job accessibility on local residential segregation of ethnic minorities: A study of Hong Kong

“…The greatest segregation is among the Korean (0.96), Nepalese (0.88), and Japanese (0.81) communities, followed by White (0.69) and Indian (0.61) enclaves. These segregation levels, particularly among the three most segregated groups, are considerably higher than the results for minority groups in North American cities (e.g., Easley, 2017). For the other South and Southeast Asians, segregation is notably lower (between 0.33 with other ethnicities and 0.49 with Filipinos and Indonesians).…”

“…More recently, researchers have extended SMH to consider other vulnerable, minority groups (e.g., low‐income, non‐Black minorities) who are also likely to experience low residential mobility due to discrimination or lack of resources and therefore spatial barriers in accessing employment opportunities (Easley, 2017; Ihlanfeldt, 1993; Liu, 2009), although their experiences may not reflect the typical spatial mismatch scenario proposed by Kain. For example, focusing on Los Angeles, Hu (2019) revealed that the employment conditions of Hispanic and Asians were more sensitive to job accessibility than both White and African American job seekers, hence calling for ethnicity‐specific strategies.…”

“…Ethnic minorities include population groups that are racially and culturally distinct from the majority population. They have often been considered to be collectively disadvantaged, although heterogeneity exists across different groups in terms of socio‐economic status (Chen et al, 2018; Easley, 2017). Of persistent concern has been the poor employment outlook and discrimination of those minority groups with relatively inferior socio‐economic conditions.…”

“…Although the empirical findings have been somewhat mixed (e.g., Holzer, 1991; Leonard, 1987; Raphael, 1998; Stoll, 2005; Taylor & Ong, 1995), the overall picture appears to support that poor employment outcomes for ethnic minorities is at least partially linked to spatial disconnection from jobs (Fieldhouse, 1999; Gobillon & Selod, 2014; Holzer, 1991). Drawing on SMH, research has also been carried out to examine the adverse employment conditions of ethnic minorities and other vulnerable groups (e.g., low‐income groups) both within and outside the North American context (e.g., Easley, 2017; Fan, Allen, & Sun, 2014; Korsu & Wenglenski, 2010; Liu & Painter, 2012; Matas, Raymond, & Roig, 2010). In these studies, both spatial (suburbanisation of jobs) and racial (discrimination and bias) factors have been found to influence the employment outcome of minority groups, which also presented significant variations across different ethnic groups (e.g., Fieldhouse, 1999; Patacchini & Zenou, 2005).…”

“…However, few studies have explicitly examined these relationships. Second, due to heterogeneous economic statuses, different minority groups within the same city may also demonstrate distinct decision patterns in trading off job accessibility and housing price, resulting in differentiated experiences of spatial mismatch (Easley, 2017; Fieldhouse, 1999; Stoll & Covington, 2012). Last, spatial mismatch and residential segregation have rarely been explored in Asian contexts, where cities are of higher population and job density, as well as being more transit oriented.…”