Abstract
There is a substantial literature on the residential mobility process itself and a smaller contribution on how households make neighborhood choices, especially with respect to racial composition. We extend that literature by evaluating the role of income and socioeconomic status in the neighborhood choice process for minorities. We use individual household data from the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Study to investigate the comparative choices of white and Hispanic households in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. We show that income and education are important explanations for the likelihood of choosing neighborhoods. But at the same time, own race preferences clearly play a role. While whites with more income choose more white neighborhoods, Hispanics with more income choose less Hispanic neighborhoods. One interpretation is that both groups are translating resources, such as income and education, into residence in whiter and ostensibly, higher status neighborhoods.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Thirty-six percent of Los Angeles County population is foreign-born (Census 2000) and 70% of this population arrived in the last two decades.
We do not adjust the sample for the clustering and stratification for the descriptive analysis as the proportions would not be affected. We do correct for stratification and clustering in the model estimates.
This is not to argue that all white households have majority white preferences, but on average the preference of white households is for majority white.
References
Alba, R., & Logan, J. (1991). Variation on two themes: Racial and ethnic patterns in attainment of suburban residence. Demography, 28, 431–453.
Alba, R., & Logan, J. (1993). Minority proximity to whites in suburbs: An individual-level analysis of segregation. American Journal Of Sociology, 98(6), 1388–1427.
Alba, R., Logan, J., & Stults, B. (2000). The changing neighborhood contexts of the immigrant metropolis. Social Forces, 29(2), 587–621.
Alba, R., & Nee, V. (1997). Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration. International Migration Review, 31, 826–874.
Allen, J., & Turner, E. (2002). Changing faces, changing places: Mapping Southern Californians. Northridge, CA: Center for Geographical Studies, California State University.
Clark, W. A. V. (1992). Residential preferences and residential choices in a multi-ethnic context. Demography, 30, 451–466.
Clark, W. A. V. (2002). Ethnic preferences and ethnic perceptions in multi-ethnic settings. Urban Geography, 23, 237–256.
Clark, W. A. V., & Blue, S. (2004). Race, class and segregation patterns in U.S. immigrant gateway cities. Urban Affairs Review, 39, 667–688.
Clark, W. A. V., & Dieleman, F. (1996). Households and housing: Choice and outcomes in the housing market. Rutgers University, Center for Urban Policy Research.
Clark, W. A. V., & Ware, J. (1997). Trends in residential integration by socioeconomic status in Southern California. Urban Affairs Review, 32(6), 825–843.
Denton, N. (1996). The persistence of segregation links between residential segregation and school segregation. Minnesota Law Review, 80, 795–824.
Dowding, K., John, P., & Biggs, S. (1994). Tiebout: A survey of the empirical literature. Urban Studies, 31, 767–797.
Ellen, I. G., Schill, M. H., Susin, S., & Schwartz, A. E. (2000). Do homeownership programs increase property values in low income neighborhoods? Working paper, New York University School of Law.
Ellen, I. G., & Turner, M. A. (1997). Does neighborhood matter? Assessing recent evidence. Housing Policy Debate, 8(4), 833–866.
Emerson, M., Yancey, G., & Chai, K. (2001). Does race matter in residential segregation? Exploring the preferences of white Americans. American Sociological Review, 66, 922–935.
Farley, J. (1995). Race still matters: The minimal role of income and housing cost as causes of housing segregation in St. Louis 1990. Urban Affairs Review, 31, 244–254.
Fischer, M. (2003). The relative importance of income and race in determining residential outcomes in U.S. urban areas, 1970–2000. Urban Affairs Review, 38, 669–696.
Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants. Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Science, 530, 74–96.
Rosenbaum, E., Friedman, S., Schill, M., & Buddelmeyer, H. (1999) Nativity differences in neighborhood quality among New York City households. Housing Policy Debate, 10, 625–658.
Quillian, L. (1999). Migration patterns and the growth of high-poverty neighborhoods, 1970–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(1), 1–37.
Sastry, N., Ghosh-Dastidar, B., Adams, J., & Pebley, A. (2003). The design of a multilevel survey of children, families, and communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey. RAND working paper. Retrieved from DRU-2400/1-1-LAFANS.
South, S., & Crowder, K. (1997). Escaping distressed neighborhoods: Individual, community and metropolitan influences. American Journal of Sociology, 102, 1040–1084.
South, S., & Crowder, K. (1998). Housing discrimination and residential mobility: Impacts for blacks and whites. Population Research and Policy Review, 17, 369–387.
St. John, C., & Clymer, R. (2000). Racial residential segregation by level of socioeconomic status. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 701–716.
Suro, R., & Singer, A. (2002). Latino growth in metropolitan America: Changing patterns, new locations. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
Tiebout, C. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64, 416–424.
Wright, R., & Ellis, M. (2000). Race, region, and the territorial politics of immigration in the US. International Journal of Population Geography, 6, 197–211.
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge the insightful and helpful comments of the editor and two anonymous reviewers, and the availability of the LAFANS data in the California Center for Population Research at HCLA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Ethnic composition of destination block group for whites and Hispanics.
Origin | Destination | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
% White | % Black | % Asian | % Latino | % White | % Black | % Asian | % Latino | |
White households below median income | ||||||||
White origin | ||||||||
0–40% | 21.20 | 7.69 | 16.40 | 51.47 | 24.48 | 8.55 | 15.26 | 48.53 |
40–60% | 49.19 | 5.58 | 10.69 | 29.23 | 29.61 | 11.71 | 17.34 | 38.16 |
60–100% | 75.51 | 1.85 | 6.94 | 10.71 | 38.74 | 10.36 | 12.91 | 33.95 |
White households above median income | ||||||||
White origin | ||||||||
0–40% | 22.54 | 3.14 | 31.04 | 39.03 | 42.61 | 8.59 | 23.52 | 20.06 |
40–60% | 52.60 | 3.61 | 7.26 | 33.59 | 52.50 | 4.88 | 17.96 | 20.17 |
60–100% | 76.62 | 1.89 | 7.65 | 9.50 | 75.93 | 2.81 | 7.04 | 9.56 |
Hispanic households below median income | ||||||||
White origin | ||||||||
0–40% | 37.80 | 13.95 | 22.48 | 21.21 | 18.19 | 7.88 | 13.28 | 57.88 |
40–60% | 13.03 | 19.99 | 13.20 | 51.52 | 8.22 | 15.04 | 8.98 | 66.66 |
60–100% | 5.23 | 8.26 | 4.69 | 80.72 | 7.44 | 7.45 | 4.92 | 78.57 |
Hispanic households above median income | ||||||||
White origin | ||||||||
0–40% | 43.35 | 4.69 | 23.87 | 24.37 | 28.69 | 2.92 | 10.76 | 53.98 |
40–60% | 9.30 | 16.34 | 18.37 | 51.99 | 20.29 | 11.77 | 29.66 | 34.24 |
60–100% | 8.71 | 3.37 | 5.91 | 80.82 | 15.97 | 3.68 | 5.18 | 73.88 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Clark, W.A.V., Ledwith, V. How much does income matter in neighborhood choice?. Popul Res Policy Rev 26, 145–161 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-007-9026-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-007-9026-9