Collective Action and Racial Segregation

“Schelling type tipping point arguments have often been used to ‘explain’ patterns of racial segregation.”

Wasn’t Schelling’s original point (however much others might abuse it) that seeing racial segregation in housing isn’t proof that it is socially (and or violently) enforced? It might be, it could be, it most certainly was in (many?) times and places, but that the simple observation that there is segregation doesn’t mean that it is in this instance.

Or have I (not unusually) missed his point?

Further to the defense of Shelling, he was clear about only demonstrating that the existence of a segregated pattern could be generated by homophily as well as by antipathy.

There are, I think, two permissible hypotheses in social science from this: a) discovery of segregation in the real world does not automatically reveal its causes and, b) legislation to reduce the effects of antipathy may not in fact lead to dramatic desegregation.

All of the misuses of Shelling (segregation is _necessarily_ a result of homophily; state action will _always_ be ineffective) are of the normal sort, where a model is backed into reality not because it fits the data but rather because it fits the biases of the opinion-holder.

My guess is that people feel pulled in the direction of a sort of “Occam’s Razor of malignity” – the idea being that rather than the simplest explanation being more likely to be correct, that there’s a reason to prefer the explanation which postulates the smallest amount of nastiness. Which I don’t think is valid reasoning; one of the things we know about meanness is that there’s lots of it to go round.

Probably well-known around here, but James Loewen’s Sundown Towns work (and book) is very relevant: while I don’t doubt that “homophilic” segregation is possible, and happens, a huge area of the U.S. was subject to segregation that was very much “antipathic”. Arson, riots, “spectacle lynchings”, and violent threats forced black people out of small towns throughout the midwest and west, and “No n* in town after sundown” laws kept them out. Similar violence drove people of Chinese descent out of Idaho, and out of small towns in California.

And yet there are many, many current examples of concentration of minorities that have nothing whatsoever to do with the threat of violence.

Ture. An important thing to recognize here is the qualitiative difference between the segregation of African-Americans and of other minorities.

I spent some time, back in the 1990s, working with Chicago census data, and one striking thing I found was that there were large swathes of the city where census tract after tract did not have a single African-American resident. Not one — and this in a city that was 40 percent black. Latinos, on the other hand, were spread much more evenly — yes, there were neighborhoods where they were a larger proportion of the population and neighborhoods where there were few, but no substantial areas where there were none at all.

One mechanism that drives residential segregation is the “white premium.” White people for whom it is important to live where there are few or no black people will bid up the price for homes in such an area. The area is of course likely to acquire a reputation for hostility to black people, which will discourage most black homeseekers. But even if the fear of violence/harassment wasn’t there, the black homeseeker can buy an equivalent home in a black or integrated area for far less; why would she pay the white premium?

(I understand this phenomenon is well recognized in the academic literature, but I haven’t read any of it. As a lawyer working in the field, I figured it out for myself.)

It’s exactly the fact that the presence of black neighbors will lead large numbers of white people to leave an area, with a corresponding decline of property values, that drives many people concerned about the value of their home to violently resists integration.

But what I am saying is that the segregation in Philadelphia is not caused by the inability of black people to move wherever the heck they want, but rather by the failure of white people to stay there.

Greater Philadelphia is likely just (or almost) as segregated as it was 50 years ago, but the maps of the segregated black neighborhoods in the two time periods wouldn’t look anything alike.

That is not a story of violently enforced segregation — it is a story of tipping points and white flight from certain neighborhoods and inner-ring suburbs.

Rich, is your arguemnt that ebcause the lines between black and white areas have changed over time, it follows that black families have been free to move wherever they want?

So according to Roac, the real victims of segregation are racists

The pernicious effects of racism are so manifold that yes, racists are “victims” too. What would you expect? Financially, however, since the escalation of value driven by racism is self-perpetuating and stable, most people who have paid the premium, so far, have probably recouped their investments in the long term. Whereas the lower appreciation of homes in black areas likely contributes to the striking racial wealth-gap.

It’s about the fact that if you own a house and want to sell it, your pool of potential buyers is much larger if the house is in a “white area” than if it is in a “black area.” And on average, the buyers will have more money to spend.

The argument is made at length in a book called The Hidden Cost of Being African American: How Wealth Perpetuates Inequality, by Thomas M. Shapiro. I have not read the book, but I remember reading the WaPo review, and saying “well, of course.” Here is a quote from the review, which is excerpted at length on Amazon:

Because neighborhoods are racially segregated, African Americans’ homes do not grow in value as fast as whites’ homes do. Shapiro calculates that housing segregation costs African Americans tens of thousands of dollars in home equity. Homebuyers look for amenities commonly found in predominantly white neighborhoods. They pay extra for parks, convenient shopping and attractive views. Parents pay huge premiums for what they perceive to be good schools. Few parents can judge schools objectively. Instead, they use easy-to-observe markers, including the race of the students. These preferences raise the costs that first-time homebuyers face when they attempt to buy houses in those mostly white neighborhoods. Economic theory implies that if whites continue to waste money on irrational prejudices like this, market forces will eventually undo the racial disparity in wealth. But the experience of the last 50 years suggests otherwise. Inequality has grown because each new generation has been willing to pay a higher premium for these amenities. The market doesn’t punish discrimination; it rewards it.

Oh, how nice! I don’t think.

I’d recommend reading “White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism” by Kevin M. Kruse for more on this topic.

If owed, accepted.

The executive branch of the US federal government, next year?

the lack of integrated neighborhoods is largely caused by tipping points and white flight

Nope. there are many white neighborhoods — in Chicago and elsewhere — with essentially zero black residents. Tipping points & white flight can’t explain that.

Incidentally, when I lived in Chicago not so many years ago, I had the experience more than once, when looking for an aprtment, of being told by broker or landlord, “This is a nice place — no blacks.” Your claim that segregation does not involve more or less coercive exclusion of blacks from certain areas doesn’t pass the laugh test.

“This pattern can be seen here (Ann Arbor) for a variety of racial/ethnic/religious groups:

– African Americans – Jews – East Asians – Muslims”

Um, I’ve been in Ann Arbor for six years, and I haven’t yet discovered the African American, Jewish, East Asian, and Muslim Quarters. Certainly there’s a fair amount of economic segregation, and some student ghetto-ization. But I’m really not aware of any racial/religious segregation.

The high concentration of Jews, Chaldeans, Lesbians etc. in Ann Arbor has nothing to do with the fact that they are less likely to get the shit beaten out of them there than in other places in the state? Look, I lived in Ann Arbor for about six years and felt a hell of a lot safer there than in Saline or Ypsi. And I’m talking about fear of getting the crap kicked out of me by other whites. The question isn’t why isn’t population evenly distributed (cause history matters, duh) but why is Ann Arbor diverse and Saline not.

Re: Camden. African-Americans moved to Camden because they could. They could not move to the suburbs like whites did because of red-lining. Red-lining existed because banks and the federal government believed whites and blacks couldn’t live together peacefully. Why did they believe that? Because whites continually beat the shit out of or killed blacks who tried to move to white neighborhoods. Note that this phenomenon is more pronounced in the North after 1920. Sugrue showed this for Detroit in Origins of the Urban Crisis and others have shown for other cities.

Um, I’ve been in Ann Arbor for six years, and I haven’t yet discovered the African American, Jewish, East Asian, and Muslim Quarters. Certainly there’s a fair amount of economic segregation, and some student ghetto-ization. But I’m really not aware of any racial/religious segregation.

OK — this is about as Ann Arbor-centric as you could get, but while there are no areas exclusively populated by these groups, you’ll find higher concentrations of African Americans in the ‘historically black’ parts of town (North Main/Wheeler Park, north of Broadway, Northside Elementary) and in the SE side of town (Platt, Carpenter Road areas — Bryant and Carpenter elementary schools and Scarlett Middle School). You’ll find concentrations of East Asians up around King Elementary. Old hippies on the Old West Side. Rich liberals (and quite a few Jewish families) in Ann Arbor Hills. Muslims also in the Northeast (the Islamic Center is also up there). Also in the SE — rare to go in Meijers on Carpenter without seeing a number of women in hijabs and often a burka or two. Don’t see them at Whole Foods or Hillers (the Jewish grocery). Rich Republicans in expensive sprawl-land developments toward Saline and Dexter. Middle-class whites in lower-priced sprawl-land in Pittsfield and toward Ypsi.

Here are some numbers for Chicago from the 1990 census:

Total population, 2.8 million, of which 1.1 million (39%) black.

Nearly half (41.2%) of blacks lived in neighborhoods that were *over 98 percent black*.

I believe that’s what’s known as a ghetto.

An additional 20 percent lived in neighborhoods that were over 90 percent black.

(And note that these figures *underestimate* the real extent of segregation, because the boundaries used — the city’s 77 designated community areas — don’t necessarily correspond to real neighborhoods. So some of the “mixed” areas are really adjoining sections of two highly sergeated areas.)

At the other extreme, 18 community areas, with 15 percent of the total population, were *less than 1 percent black*.

Remember, this is a city that is nearly 40 percent black. And this measure misses all-white neighborhoods that fall into the same community areas as separate black or mixed neighborhoods.

The 10 most segregated community areas, with a total popualtion of 240,000 — nearly a tenth of the city — had just *214 blacks in total*. Again, in a city that was 40 percent black.

This is segregation.

It has nothing to do with the kind of natural sorting you find in a place like Ann Arbor. There is nothing close to it for any other group. And it doesn’t happen without massive coercion.

> Slocum, I think you are right that the
> classic white flight dynamic largely ceased to
> operate after 1975 or so.

The south suburbs of Chicago. Not as fast or as extreme as Roseland in the 1960s, but the children/grandchildren of the whites who fled Roseland then are now abandoning, e.g. Homewood/Flossmoor, as middle-class blacks much like themselves move in.

Cranky

The south suburbs of Chicago.

I think, tho, that what you see now is a more gradual process. In the 1950s and ’60s neighborhoods could go from essentially 100% white to 100% black within just a few years. (The awareness of this possibility, of course, was one of the reasons whites were so resistant to having *any* blacks move in.) That’s what doesn’t happen now.

Whoops, obviously that should be does not have to be the Klan.

Just to add to what Witt’s saying, there is evidence that racial steering is still going on despite fair housing laws. Among the comments quoted in the linked article made by real estate agents during a 2000 housing discrimination study is this one from Philadelphia:

“You would not like homes around [area] because it is ‘densely populated.’ How do I put this nicely? [After thinking for a moment, the agent sighed and said] There are some things in real estate that I just can’t say.” (Philadelphia, PA)

lemuel pitkin: Let’s be clear: This is not the sort of pattern that discussions of segregation are concerned with. Ann Arbor, as you describe it, is not segregated.

There are certainly activists in town who disagree and believe that Ann Arbor still has a level of segregation is one that needs to be remedied. Ann Arbor was under a court-ordered school desegregation program. Until fairly recently (e.g. the last decade or so), the school district was operating as if it was still bound by the decision and had a rule that no school could have an ethnic population that was, I believe, more than 50% off. So if African Americans were 16% of the district population, then no school could be less than 8% black or more than 32%. And because of housing patterns, boundary gerrymandering and busing were, indeed, used to make that happen.

The last time elementary school boundaries were re-drawn (about 10 years ago), there was a huge, nasty fight over moving kids and closing elementary schools and converting them to magnet programs, and during that process the district finally admitted it had no longer had legal obligation to follow that 50% rule. But even now there are controversies related to segregation. For example:

http://www.proposedhighschool.org/supporting/demographics/JMFRaceEssay.html

But my point is not that it’s some sort of mini 1950s Little Rock situation around here. I think living patterns here are now based entirely on preferences and economics. But preferences and economics result in some areas with concentrations of minorities and other areas with virtually none.

The “emergent” account doesn’t fit well with the historical facts, but it does fit well with certain intellectual biases, and by no means only those of economists.

Martin Bento: Historical facts, no. But the current situation yes. We see clusters of various racial and ethnic minorities (some historical, some newly created) that emerge from nothing more than a desire to live around at least some other people with whom one shares language, tastes in food, national background, religion, and cultural mores. But if minorities cluster at higher than average concentrations in some areas, that necessarily leaves other areas with few or none. And this is the case even if those concentrations are nowhere near 100%.

Out of curiosity, what are the most recent examples of white flight in the U.S.?

Prince George’s County, Maryland. By the next census, it may have (if it doesn’t already) more black residents than neighboring Washington, DC – and fewer white residents.

And while parts of the county are run-down and hard to tell from the DC slums they border…other parts of it are quite affluent. And yet apart from a few areas on the periphery, and a few others around the University of Maryland, whites just don’t move there and have spent the last 30 years leaving in droves. The perception certainly exists that the county government is badly run and that most of the schools are poor, at least when compared to other schools in the DC area.

Do you really think that’s the explanation for the patterns in Chicago?

Yes and no — depends on where in Chicago. On the north side, yes I do. Preferences and economics drive changes in demographics continually. There’s a repeated pattern of gentrification starting with gays/bohemians looking for cheap urban real-estate to be followed by yuppies once the place is cleaned up. For example:

“Is this progress or is it just part of the cycle of gentrification, of city life itself? Do I feel resentful that my neighborhood is becoming more straight-inclined, that younger gays are priced out of living here? Or is there room enough for everyone–for should all new residents of Ukrainian Village be Ukrainian? Should all new residents of Lakeview be gay just because this is a gay neighborhood and there are rainbow pylons on Halsted Street? We’re free to choose where we live based on the space, services, and amenities we can afford. Free market, free will.”

http://lakeviewstudio.blogspot.com/2005/04/on-gentrification-and-gays.html

The defeat of teleology in explanations of the natural world is, of course, a basic boundary between modern science and religion

I have to say that teleological explanations haven’t been excluded from modern science; on the contrary, they are very common in biology (some would argue they are a special and ineliminable feature of biological explanations). What has been rejected, as you rightly note in #52, is the inference from the appearance of functional design to the existence of a designer, but that is a rather different point…

Yes and no—depends on where in Chicago. On the north side, yes I do. Preferences and economics drive changes in demographics continually.

You *really* don’t want to talk about segregation, do you?

A note on racial steering, raised in no. 45. It is illegal for a real estate agent to volunteer any information about racial makeup of a neighborhood; agents generally are trained to refuse to answer any questions on the subject. It is just as much a violation to communicate the information by a wink and a nudge, as described in the post, as to come right out and say it.

Having said that, it is unfortunately a fact that a whole lot of people want to know about race when house-hunting, so just as with drugs and prostitution, we are talking about willing sellers and willing buyers. (Some fair housing types profess a view of the world in which nobody would think about race in this context if the evil real estate industry didn’t plant the idea. Hopelessly naive in my view.) It’s easy to catch agents doing this by the use of “testers,” just as it’s easy for undercover cops to catch prostitutes, but it’s not a very productive strategy and has been largely abandoned.

Withholding information about listings in white areas from black buyers is another kettle of fish – but harder to prove.

Martin Bento: If you mean that type B explanations of the human world generally are more valid now than previously, I don’t know why that would be so.

Only because the relative strengths of A and B have changed — in the U.S. at least (which is what we’ve been discussing). I would say both ‘type A’ and ‘type B’ effects are quite a bit weaker than they used to be. Not only is segregation created and enforced by overt racial animus, violence, and intimidation very much less common than before, but also people have weaker preferences for living around ‘people like themselves’ or, I suppose you could say, people have a broader sense of ‘people like themselves’. So what I’m saying is that where you do see higher-than-average concentrations of minorities, the causes are much more likely to be of ‘type B’.

lemuel pitkin: You really don’t want to talk about segregation, do you?

And you really seem unwilling to acknowledge any improvement in race relations. Efforts against racism have been ongoing for several generations — do you think these have had no effect? Survey results show enormous shifts in racial attitudes — toward, for example, interracial dating and marriage. Consider the complete reversal during the last 50 years seen here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/Most-Americans-Approve-Interracial-Marriages.aspx

Do you think these dramatically changing attitudes have had no appreciable effect on living patterns?

And you really seem unwilling to acknowledge any improvement in race relations.

Absolutely it’s improved. But the question raised by the post is, how did the extreme segregation of African-Americans in many big cities, which persists in only somewhat diminished form, come into being?

In that context, talking about the totally different kind of clustering you see of other demographic groups is just a distraction.

“You really don’t want to talk about segregation, do you?”
Posted by lemuel pitkin

The original post which started this conversation was on ‘Schelling type tipping point arguments’; IMHO they were eagerly embraced by the right *because* they allowed people to ignore the stunning history of deliberate and enforced racial segregation.