Immigrant Enclaves and Ethnic Communities in New York and Los Angeles Author(s): John R.

Logan, Wenquan Zhang, Richard D. Alba Source: American Sociological Review, Vol. 67, No. 2 (Apr., 2002), pp. 299-322 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3088897 Accessed: 25/03/2010 23:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Sociological Review.

http://www.jstor.org

IMMIGRANT ENCLAVES AND ETHNIC COMMUNITIES IN NEW YORK AND Los ANGELES
JOHN R. LOGAN University at Albany WENQUAN ZHANG University at Albany The predominant post-1965 immigrant groups have established distinctive settlement areas in many American cities and suburbs. These areas are generally understood in terms of an "immigrant enclave" model in which ethnic neighborhoods in central cities serve relatively impoverished new arrivals as a potential base for eventual spatial assimilation with the white majority. This model, and the "ethnic community" model, are evaluated here. In the ethnic community model, segregated settlement can result from group preferences even when spatial assimilation is otherwise feasible. Analysis of the residential patterns of the largest immigrant groups in New Yorkand Los Angeles shows that most ethnic neighborhoods can be interpreted as immigrant enclaves. In some cases, however, living in ethnic neighborhoods is unrelated to economic constraints, indicating a positive preference for such areas. Suburban residence does not necessarily imply living outside of ethnic neighborhoods. Indeed, for several groups the suburban enclave provides an alternative to assimilation-it is an ethnic community in a relatively high-status setting. RICHARD D. ALBA University at Albany

has long been HE NEIGHBORHOOD considered a key facet of immigrantlife. Despite dispute over the importance of neighborhoodsfor the average urbanresident (Kasarda and Janowitz 1974; Logan and Molotch 1987; Wellman 1979; Wirth 1938), there is wide agreement that neighborhoods
Direct all correspondence to John Logan, Departmentof Sociology, University at Albany, Albany, NY 12222 ([email protected]). This research was supported by a grant from National Science Foundation (SBR95-07920) and by the Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research. The Center for Social and Demographic Analysis, University at Albany, provided technical and administrative support through grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P30 HD32041) and the National Science Foundation (SBR-9512290). We are grateful for the assistance of the staff of the Census Data Research Center at UCLA in the use of confidential census files at the Center.
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REvIEW,

continue to have an important function for new arrivals. This is particularlyevident for people whose customs or language set them apart from the majority population. A longestablished line of thoughtholds that concentrated immigrant settlement areas arise and are maintained because they meet newcomers' needs for affordablehousing, family ties, a familiar culture, and help in finding work (e.g., Thomas and Znaniecki [1927] 1974). We call attention to another kind of ethnic neighborhood, one based more on choice than on constraints. According to the well-known model of "spatial assimilation" (Massey 1985), segregation is naturalas a group enters the United States. In the beginning, people's limited market resources and ethnically bound cultural and social capital are mutually reinforcing; they work in tandem to sustain ethnic neighborhoods. But these are transitional neighborhoods-they represent a practical and temporaryphase in the incorporationof
2002, VOL.67 (APRIL:299-322) 299

300

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL

REVIEW

new groups into American society. Their residents search for areas with more amenities as soon as their economic situations improve, their outlooks broaden, and they learn to navigate daily life in a more mainstreamsetting. People with more financial resources and mainstreamjobs avoid ethnic zones, and these areas are left behind by immigrants with more experience and by the second generation in search of the "Promised Land." We use the term immigrant enclave to refer to such neighborhoods.1 Earlier in this century, Chicago School ecologists recognized immigrant enclaves and gave them names like Little Sicily, Greektown, and Chinatown (Burgess [1925] 1967). Portes and Jensen (1987) emphasize thattoday, even in the Miami region, where a vibrant Cuban enclave economy is highly concentrated in Hialeah and in the Little Havana section of Miami, immigrant businessmen, professionals, and better-paid employees have abandoned their original settlement areas and moved toward more affluent suburbs. Immigrant enclaves can be identified by their physical characteristics (by the usual standards of mainstream society, they are less desirable as places to live) and by the characteristics of the people who live in them (they concentrate immigrants who are recently arrived and have few socioeconomic resources). By implication, the neighborhoods to which upwardly mobile group members diffuse are less ethnically distinct and have greater economic resources. We believe that changes in the natures of urban space and of immigration have begun to alter the function of ethnic neighborhoods for some groups or individual group members. Most important, there is now potential for acculturation and market position to be decoupled. The assimilation model was built from the experience of immigrants from the late nineteenth century. These immigrants entered American cities, in which workingclass people had to live near their places of
1A similar term, ethnic enclave economy, has been used to designate certain forms of group concentration in the local labor market. We restrict our use of the term immigrant enclave to residential concentrations, although we also study the relationship between living in ethnic neighborhoods and working in ethnic jobs.

employment and had little contact with people outside their neighborhood. Today, the automobile and other systems of transportation and communication have weakened the connection of home to work and enlarged the geographic scale of people's active social networks. Growing shares of immigrants live and work in suburbs (Alba et al. 1999). In addition, most immigrants a century ago were manual laborers without the financial resources to have much control over where they lived. The contemporary immigration stream is more diverse and includes many immigrants with high levels of humancapital who find professional or other high-status positions in the United States. (Nee and Sanders 2001; Portes and Rumbaut 1990). As a result, some groups are now able to establish enclaves in desirable locations, often in suburbia, and group members may choose these locations even when spatial assimilation is feasible. Living in an ethnic neighborhood may still be an "ethnic" behavior as posited by the assimilation model, more typical of newer immigrants with narrower horizons. But if living in these zones is not associated with low economic standing or a need to find work in the ethnic economy-that is, if it is not at the same time an adaptation to circumstance-we must reconsider whether the ethnic choice stems from constraint or from preference. For some, the ethnic neighborhood is a starting point; for others, it may be a favored destination. We use the term ethnic community to refer to ethnic neighborhoods that are selected as living environments by those who have wider options based on their marketresources. The ethnic community, as we define it here, is formed through a different social process than is the immigrant enclave. It is grounded in motives associated more with taste and preference than with economic necessity, or even with the ambition to create neighborhoods that will symbolize and sustain ethnic identity. Bonacich (1973) suggests that residential self-segregation is typical of middleman minorities, which "form highly organized communities which resist assimilation" (p. 586). Zhou (1992) interprets the satellite Chinatowns that have emerged in Flushing and other outlying parts

IMMIGRANT ENCLAVES

AND ETHNIC COMMUNITIES

301

of the New York region in this way. Horton (1995) describes a similar patternfor suburban Monterey Park, located not far from downtown Los Angeles, that was aggressively marketedby Chinese American developers to well-heeled immigrants and investors from Taiwan and Hong Kong. Marcuse (1997) also calls attention to such areas, "in which members of a particular population group, self-defined by ethnicity or religion or otherwise, congregate as a means of enhancing their economic, social, political and/ or cultural development" (p. 242). The Chicago School ecologists noticed an element of preference as well as necessity in the creation of immigrant colonies. But because both preference and necessity operated in the same direction-because the immigrants they studied appeared to have little choice in where to live-preference was of secondary importance in their theory of spatial assimilation. What makes it potentially more significant today is the presence of immigrant groups with high levels of human and financial capital, such as Asian Indians, who have the means to translatetheir preferences for residing in a culturally familiar environment into residential niches in affluent areas. These are the groups for which we expect to find ethnic communities. By contrast, the areas of concentration established by low-wage labor migrant groups, such as Mexicans, are less likely to hold their more successful and more acculturatedmembers; these areas, then, may look more like immigrant enclaves. We hypothesize that the market resources that immigrant groups bring with them are the primarydeterminantof the kinds of neighborhoods they establish (Nee and Sanders 2001). We must also bear in mind a third type of segregated neighborhood: the minority ghetto. Again, the ghetto reflects an entirely different social process, the exclusion of groups from certain locations regardless of their personal resources and preferences. Massey and Denton (1993) refer to this as residential apartheid.All three forms of segregated neighborhoods are ideal types, and aspects of all three may apply to some groups, including African Americans. For example, some studies (e.g., Alba, Logan, and Stults 2000) show that the locational process underlying black neighborhoods has

a key feature in common with that producing immigrantenclaves as we describe them: African Americans with high income and education are more likely to live in suburbs, in areas with high proportions of nonblack residents, and in neighborhoods that are safe and well-to-do. This suggests that the black middle class can navigate the housing market to meet their needs more freely than can poor blacks (Wilson 1987). Those who have more marketchoice may exercise this choice to achieve a modicum of spatial assimilation. Immigrantenclaves and minority ghettos may also be alike in other ways, both exhibiting a prevalence of cheap and densely populated housing stock, inner city location, poverty, and other indicators of dependency. The difference is that the enclave is understood to be a temporaryresidential way-station, while the ghetto is thought to ensnare people in a system that "did not allow blacks to be immigrants" (Logan and Molotch 1987:126, italics in the original). Even the most affluent African Americans have less residential mobility and live in less desirable neighborhoods than do comparable whites (Logan, Alba, McNulty, and Fisher 1996; South and Crowder 1997). Thus, if the black neighborhood is a platform for mobility for African Americans, as the enclave is posited to be for immigrants,it is a very limited one, and this circumstancejustifies thinking of it as a ghetto.2 Black neighborhoods may also have something in common with ethnic communities: an element of self-segregation. Surveys of middle-class African Americans reveal a reluctance to live in mostly white communities (Feagin and Sikes 1994:264-65; Rose 1981). Some researchers(e.g., Clark 1991; Shelling 1971) have suggested that such preferences contributestrongly to racial segregation. But the prevailing view is that black residential choice is highly constrained by a dual housing market(Galster 1988; Yinger 1987). And because those African Americans with the most resources, and therefore the most options in the housing market, are the least
1965) used this same term to refer to the second-generation Jewish settlements that he studied, at least partly because of the restrictions imposed on Jewish home-seekers at that time in many American cities.
2 Wirth ([1928]

302

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL

REVIEW

likely to live in highly segregated settings, it does not seem likely that they have strong ingroup preferences. The ethnic neighborhoods of some immigrant groups have a ghetto quality in the sense that we have used the term. Certainly some groups (such as the Afro-Caribbeans and Dominicans in our study) experience housing discrimination. Evidence that a group remains highly segregated over an extended period, that few group members ever achieve sufficient resources to leave their enclaves, and that those who try to leave are subject to unequal treatment in the housing marketwould indicate the need to go beyond the immigrantenclave versus ethnic community typology that we apply here. RESEARCH DESIGN

generation, and group members who have become fluent in English. We will interpret the pattern for this group as ethnic community. We anticipate that groups will differ in their locational processes. The immigrant enclave will prove more valuable in understanding the pattern for groups with large numbers of economic refugees without urban market skills, while the ethnic community will apply better to groups who enter the country with substantial resources.
SAMPLE METROPOLITAN REGIONS AND IMMIGRANT GROUPS

We study the New York and Los Angeles metropolitan regions in 1990, including the seven or eight largest immigrant groups in each region, and encompassing both group members born abroad and those in the second and later generations in the United States. We apply novel methods of identifying ethnic neighborhoods and analyzing who lives in them, and we compare ethnic and nonethnic neighborhoods along a variety of social and economic dimensions. Ourinterpretationof results follows a logic that is consistent with the traditional literature on spatial assimilation. Suppose that for a given group we find that having greater economic and social resources, being more culturally assimilated, and residing in the suburbs is associated with living outside of ethnic neighborhoods. Suppose, in addition, that ethnic neighborhoods have larger shares of immigrants and non-English speakers and also lower economic standing than the other neighborhoods in which group members live. We will take these results to mean that the locational process is one of spatial assimilation and will interpretethnic neighborhoods like this as immigrant enclaves. Alternatively, people with more resources may be equally likely or even more likely to live in ethnic neighborhoods, and these ethnic neighborhoods may prove comparable in economic standing to other locales. Such neighborhoods may be capable of holding onto long-resident immigrants, the second

New York and Los Angeles are naturallaboratories for studying the residential patterns of immigrant groups in the American metropolis. They have in common the extraordinary size and diversity of their immigrant populations, but they represent distinct eras of urbandevelopment-New York, the nineteenth-century walking city with a 100-year history of immigrant neighborhoods, and Los Angeles, the California automobile city settled mainly by second- and third-generation Americans. New York, like most large American cities in the Northeast and Midwest, is a product of immigration, and every successive wave of immigrants since the mid-nineteenth century has left its mark on its neighborhoods. Some white ethnic neighborhoods from the turn of the century lasted less than a generation, for example, the important Jewish settlement in Central Harlem between 1910 and 1925 (Gurock 1979). Others, like Italian Bensonhurst in Brooklyn (Alba, Logan, and Crowder 1997), are still known as ethnic enclaves. Today's new immigrants therefore recreate an established patternof segregated living, whether in neighborhoods with a tradition of passage from one ethnic group to another (like Manhattan's Lower East Side, which was German Deutschland early in its history, then Jewish, and more recently Puerto Rican and Dominican), or in new, even suburban locations (such as Asian neighborhoods in northernNew Jersey). In the New York-New Jersey metropolitan region (CMSA) in 1990 there were seven Latino and Asian groups with more than 100,000 people, counting group members in

IMMIGRANT ENCLAVES

AND ETHNIC COMMUNITIES

303

the first and later generations. In New York, the largest new immigrant group was AfroCaribbean, from a set of islands in the English-speaking West Indies and Haiti, with more than 500,000 by 1990. Nearly as numerous were the Dominicans (more than 400,000) and Chinese (more than 300,000). The remaining ethnic groups in New York were Asian Indians (nearly 200,000), Cubans (about 150,000), and Koreans and Filipinos (both just over 100,000). Larger than any of these groups was the Puerto Rican population (close to 1,250,000). We do not include Puerto Ricans here because they arrived mainly before 1970, representinga different era of population movements to New York. The new immigrant groups grew rapidly from 1980 to 1990, approximately doubling in most cases.3 Los Angeles, by contrast, is a twentiethcentury creation. Although it inherited small numbers of Mexicans and Japanese from an earlier era, it was first catapulted into the ranks of major cities by the arrival of second- and later-generation European-origin whites from other regions of the United States, many of whom moved directly into outlying neighborhoods and suburbs(Laslett 1996). Its white ethnic and Mexican enclaves were relatively small at mid-century, although many Mexicans-mostly the result of immigration after 1920-were concentrated in former agriculturaldistricts outside
3 The U.S. Census provides several different ways of identifying these population groups, each of which yields a different estimate of their size. We employed definitions that allow us to identify groups consistently with both the 1990 Summary Tape Files and the 1990 Public Use Microdata that are required for our analyses. Asian groups are identified by the racial categories in the census. Latino groups are identified by the census's Hispanic origin categories. And AfroCaribbeans are defined by the ancestry category of "West Indian, except Hispanic origin groups." The latter regrettably does not include Guyana. The 1980 STF and PUMS files allow the same Asian groups to be identified by race and AfroCaribbeans by ancestry. Mexicans and Cubans are listed in the 1980 Hispanic origin categories. But Dominicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans cannot be identified in the 1980 STF by Hispanic origin or by ancestry. Their total number (in Table 1) is drawn from the 1980 PUMS ancestry categories.

the city (Sanchez 1993). In the Los Angeles region, therefore, most of today's immigrant neighborhoods are of relatively recent vintage, and some are rural settlements converted into suburbs. In Los Angeles-Long Beach in 1990 there were eight immigrantgroups with more than 100,000 residents each in 1990. By far the most numerous were Mexicans, nearing 4 million by 1990-a full quarter of the region's population. Salvadorans, Chinese, and Filipinos numbered in the vicinity of 300,000 by 1990 (more than doubling since 1980). The numbers of Koreans (about 200,000) and Vietnamese and Guatemalans (both about 150,000) had also more than doubled, while the Japanese (about 175,000, mainly of the third and fourth generations) had grown more moderately. Despite their differences of history and geography, New York and Los Angeles now stand together as homes to the largest and most diverse populations of new immigrant groups in the nation. We expect these two cities to be similar in many respects, with the main differences associated with Los New York Angeles's greatersuburbanization. is about evenly split between city and suburb, while Los Angeles is heavily suburban, and its suburbanMexicans, Chinese, Filipinos, Koreans, Japanese, and Vietnamese actually outnumber their in-city counterparts. Suburbanizationmight be expected to have a large impact on the formation of ethnic neighborhoods, as a long-standing hypothesis of the spatial-assimilation model is that segregation is weaker in suburban settings than in urbanones (Massey 1985). And suburban areas in which group members live may be unlike the typical immigrantenclave that sociologists have described in central cities. Our sample allows us to compare central city and suburbanpatternsin both metropolitan areas and evaluate how suburbanization influences ethnic neighborhood formation.
IDENTIFYING ETHNIC NEIGHBORHOODS

Ethnic neighborhoods are most often identified and studied through fieldwork in which the researcher typically begins with the knowledge that the ethnic character of a given locale is socially recognized-cer-

304

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL

REVIEW

tainly by group members and perhaps also by others. This ethnic charactermay be visible through the observation of people in public places, the names of shops or the languages found on signs or spoken by clerks or patrons, or by community institutions such as churches, social clubs, and associations. Our study follows a different traditionone that relies on census data. Criteria vary across studies, but there appears to be consensus on two dimensions: concentration and spatial clustering. Alba et al. (1997) operationalized an ethnic neighborhood as "a set of contiguous tracts, which must contain at least one tract where a group is represented as 40% or more of the residents and whose other tracts each have a level of ethnic concentration among residents of at least 35%" (p. 893). The largest group they studied was Italians (28 percent of whites in the region); hence, in the minimal case, an "Italian neighborhood" had to have at least one tract in which Italians were 1.4 times their average concentration. Because a given group is not necessarily a majority in an ethnic neighborhood some zones may contain "ethnic neighborhoods" of more than one group. Philpott (1978) has pointed out that the principal Swedish ghetto identified by Park and Burgess in Chicago in 1930 was only 24 percent Swedish; the German ghetto was only 32 percent German. Some places today have international reputations as ethnic neighborhoods despite having modest percentages of group members. For example, parts of Los Angeles "are so heavily identified with Armenians that when prospective emigrants in Armenia or Iran are asked about their destination, they may answer 'Hollywood' or 'Glendale,' respectively, instead of America" (Bozorgmehr, Der-Martirosian, and Sabagh 1996:368). Yet in 1990, Armenians made up only about 25 percent of residents of Hollywood and Glendale, reaching a maximum of 33 percent in their most "Armenian" tract, and only 10 to 15 percent in their peripheries. Among well-known contemporary Chinese neighborhoods, the core immigrantarea of Flushing (in Queens, New York) studied by Zhou (1992) was only 14 percent Chinese in 1990. Monterey Park, California was less

than 25 percent Chinese in the mid-1980s when Horton (1995) began to study it. A recent study of minority groups in Los Angeles defined Asian residential enclaves as areas that were as little as 10 percent Asian (Bobo et al. 2000). Can contemporary ethnic neighborhoods with such modest shares of group members still support an ethnic infrastructure (religious institutions, social networks, shops)? There is at this time no scientific answer to this question. The requisite research showing how different levels of group concentration may be associated with people's perceptions of an area or with ethnic institutions has not been conducted. We suspect, though, that advances in transportationand communication have allowed ethnic neighborhoods to spread out and encompass somewhat larger zones of lower absolute group density than was true a century ago. Besides the level of concentration in any single tract, a striking feature of the residential pattern of many new immigrant groups is the extent to which their concentrations are spatially clustered and often spread over large areas (see, for example, the maps of the Los Angeles metropolis presented in Allen and Turner 1997). We suspect that clustering in adjacent tracts accentuates the ethnic character and reputation of neighborhoods by aggregating more group members in a delimited space (compared with a situation in which single tracts with high concentrations are spatially isolated). Researchers have always intuitively made use of contiguity in mapping ethnic neighborhoods. Thanks to recent advances in spatial analysis, it is now possible to measure such clustering systematically. Responding in part to concerns about spatial autocorrelation, geographers have developed several indicators of the extent to which the spatial distribution of place characteristics departs from a "random"pattern. Anselin (1995) has extended this work to a class of "local indicators of spatial association" (LISA), which offer a measure for
each place of the extent of significant spatial clustering of similar values around it.

In brief, LISA indicators identify "hot spots" that take into account not only unusually high or low values in a single place (such as a census tract) but also the values

IMMIGRANT ENCLAVES

AND ETHNIC COMMUNITIES

305

in nearby places. Our approach to identifying ethnic neighborhoods is based mainly on this kind of spatial clustering. Concretely, using SpaceStat exploratory spatial analysis software in conjunction with ArcView mapping software, we identify clusters of census tracts that have statistically significant values of local Moran's I (Ii), indicating unusually high values of a group's presence.4 As measured this way, a "cluster" is made up of a single focal census tract along with all tracts that surround and share a boundary with it. In fact, most such clusters are not isolated, but extend continuously over areas containing many tracts. It is usually only at the edges of these larger ethnic neighborhoods that the ethnic concentration thins out. At the edge, we include within the ethnic neighborhood all of the focal tracts of the clusters, plus those surrounding tracts in each cluster whose group concentrations are equal to the average concentration of the rest of the neighborhood. In the absence of established criteria on how to identify ethnic neighborhoods, we wondered whether the patternof results that we report is affected by the classification scheme. To test the robustness of our findings, we experimented with alternative classification schemes. In one, we adopted the "double share" criterion used by Alba et al. (1997). Applied to Mexicans in Los Angeles, this led to a cutting point of 50 percent for "Mexican" neighborhoods. No other group studied here includes more than 3 percent of the metropolitan population, and for all of them we applied a minimum threshold of 10 percent. In another scheme, we requiredthat the group's odds-ratio in a tract be 5.0 or above. For Mexicans, this level is reachedfor census tracts that are more than 63.6 percent
4 Following Anselin (1995) the "local Moran statistic for an observation i may be defined as
Ii = ZiIWijZj, (1)

where, analogous to the global Moran's I, the observations zi and Zjare in deviations from the mean, and the summation over] is such that only neighboring values j E Ji are included. For ease of interpretation,the [spatial] weights wi1may be in row-standardizedform ... and by convention,
= 0" (p. 98).

Mexican. For other groups, it is reached when group members make up between 3.0 percent (for the smallest group, Filipinos in New York) and 13.4 percent (for the largest remaining group, Afro-Caribbeans in New York) of the population. We also tested a modification of the cluster methodology, identifying as "ethnic neighborhoods" only those spatial clusters in which at least one census tract has at least 15 percent (or alternatively, 20 percent) group members. Most results (other than the number of ethnic neighborhoods, which is directly derived from the classification criterion) are stable regardless of the classification procedure used. This robustness stems from two related sources. First, for all groups the greatest share of group members is found in those tracts with high levels of concentration. Relatively few group members are moved from an ethnic neighborhood to a nonethnic neighborhood by the different definitions that we evaluated. Second, the vast majority of census tracts have only tiny shares of any of these groups. Consider the Mexicans. Although they compose 25 percent of the Los Angeles population, less than one tract in five is as high as 5 percent Mexican. Turning to the remaining groups, no more than 30 percent of tracts have above 2 percent of group members among their residents. Hence most tracts will be classified as "nongroup"under any classification scheme. To illustrate the neighborhoods identified through spatial analysis, Figure 1 provides maps showing the spatial clusters of two groups: Afro-Caribbeans in New York and Chinese in Los Angeles. Similar published maps of the settlement patterns of many other groups are available for New York City (Mollenkopf 1993) and for the Los Angeles metropolis (Allen and Turner 1997). Ethnic neighborhoods (that is, contiguous tracts with significant spatial clustering scores) are darkly shaded. Nonneighborhood census tracts are shown in two ways: The lightest shaded areas are suburban,and the moderately shaded areas are within the central cities. There are several large concentrations of Afro-Caribbeans in the New York metropolis (Crowder 1999). Crown Heights/Flatbush is located in the center of Brooklyn. Jamaica

306
N

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL

REVIEW

Mt.Vemon/ - N :: 0 astchester Parkt Monterey San Gabriel W

S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
hnatn
|Hepstead/l":. Hacienda Hts.

RanchoPalos Verdes
| |

~~~~~~~~~~~~~J

' amaica l,, j(0

4 Miles

: Afro-Caribbean Clusters NewYork in

ChineseClustersin LosAngeles
Noncluster (suburban) * Noncluster (central city) Cluster

MOs

Figure 1. Ethnic Neighborhoods in New York and Los Angeles, 1990

is in the borough of Queens. Mt. Vernon/ Eastchester straddles the boundary between the Bronx and Westchester County, and Hempstead/Uniondaleis in suburbanNassau County. Crown Heights/Flatbush has the largest number of Afro-Caribbeanresidents (104,000). The Chinese in Los Angeles are also clustered into a few residential zones. They have small concentrations in the traditional Chinatown adjacent to downtown and also a suburban neighborhood centered on Hacienda Heights. Their main concentration (79,000 Chinese) is found in Monterey Park/ San Gabriel, which is often described as a suburbanChinatown (Horton 1995).
CHARACTERISTICS OF ETHNIC AND NONETHNIC NEIGHBORHOODS

Having identified the neighborhoods, the next step in our analysis is to compare ethnic neighborhoods with the other neighborhoods where group members live. To test the ethnic enclave and ethnic community models, we select two sets of indicators from the 1990 U.S. Census of Population (STF4), some related to ethnicity and nativity and others related to economic standing.

In the first set are the percentages of neighborhoodresidents who are immigrants, who speak the language of the group, and who speak English only. The language data are of varying importance. For some groups (Chinese, Koreans) they are quite precise and relevant-group members have a specific non-English native language, and it is possible to calculate the percentage of group members who speak that language. For one group (Afro-Caribbean), the majority has English as a native language. And for those from Spanish-speaking countries, our measure is not group-specific, but refers to the percentage of people of Hispanic origin who speak Spanish. The second set of indicators includes the median household income, the share of the population below the poverty line, and the share of the labor force with high occupational status (professional, managerial, and technical workers). In this part of the analysis, all values are weighted means for census tracts in a particular category of neighborhoods, where the weight is the number of group members in each tract. These averages are therefore similar to exposure indices: They tell us about the neighborhoods (ethnic neighbor-

IMMIGRANT ENCLAVES

AND ETHNIC COMMUNITIES

307

hoods and nonethnic neighborhoods) in which the average group member lives. Data are provided separately for tracts in the central city and suburbanportions of each metropolitan region.
THE DETERMINANTS OF LIVING IN AN ETHNIC NEIGHBORHOOD

Our final step is to estimate models predicting the probability that a group member resides in an ethnic neighborhood. Publicly available data would not allow us to base this analysis directly on characteristicsof the person's census tract because the smallest unit of geography for which the 1990 PUMS identifies individuals' location is an area of approximately 100,000 persons, termed a PUMA (Public Use Microdata Area). (One publicly available national data set, the PUMS-F, contains census microdata matched to tract characteristics; however, this file does not identify specific cities or metropolitan areas, and it is therefore not useful for our purpose.) A PUMA is much larger than a census tract, and in most cases larger than any ethnic neighborhood. For this reason, we use confidential census files (the CENSAS data set) that are accessible for use under secure conditions at the Census Bureau's Census Data Research Centers. CENSAS has the obvious advantageof identifying the census tract of residence, and the additional advantage of including a 15 percent sample of the population. The dependent variable in our analysis is binary: whether the tract of residence is inside or outside of an ethnic neighborhood, as identified above. For each group, we select one group member in the household for study, either the householder or the householder's spouse (if only one belongs to the group in question, then we take that person; when both do we choose randomly between them. We evaluate the following variables, whose effects are anticipated by the spatial assimilation model: (1) NATIvITY. Group members born in the United States are expected to be less likely to live in ethnic neighborhoods than are immigrants; among immigrants, the most recent arrivals are expected to be most likely to live in residential enclaves. Nativity is represented by three dummy variables: Im-

migrated after 1985, between 1965 and 1985, and before 1965. U.S.-born is treated as the reference category. (2) LANGUAGE. In tandem with nativity, language is considered to be an indicator of cultural assimilation. Bilingual persons who speak English poorly are most likely to live in residential enclaves (while at the same time, residential segregation could impede learning or using English). Language is represented by two dummy variables, with "speaking only English at home" treated as the reference category. Two dummy variables refer to those who speak another language at home: speaking English well and speaking English poorly. (3) EDUCATION. Education (years of schooling completed) is a standardindicator of socioeconomic status. Once other more strictly economic indicators are controlled, however, education may also be an indicator of cultural adaptability (the cosmopolitan outlook that is posited in modernization theory) or culturalexperience (for those who were educated partly in the United States). Whether for economic or cultural reasons, the assimilation model expects more highly educated people to be less likely to live in an ethnic neighborhood.
(4) HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND HOMEOWNERSHIP. Household income (expressed

in thousands of dollars) and homeownership (a dummy variable) are both direct indicators of socioeconomic achievement, presumed to be negatively associated with living in an ethnic neighborhood. Responding to (5) ETHNIC EMPLOYMENT. the literature on ethnic economies, we include two indicators of position in the labor force. The first is whether any household member is self-employed. Business owners among immigrant groups (net of the effect of their possibly higher income) may depend on connections with co-ethnics as consumers or as sources of supplies or labor; this consideration advances the hypothesis that owners are more likely to live in ethnic neighborhoods. But workers may be equally dependent on such ties in finding employment. Hence self-employment is not in itself a convincing indicator of ethnic dependency. Better are measures of the industry sectors in which people work, because ethnic economies are so often concentratedin certain sec-

308

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL

REVIEW

tors. Following procedures established in prior work (Logan et al. 2000), we identify ethnic sectors of three types: (a) those in which the group is overrepresented as both owners and workers (an enclave sector), (b) those in which the group is overrepresented only as owners (an entrepreneurial niche), and (c) those in which the group is overrepresented only as workers (a labor niche). According to the assimilation model, group members in any of these types of ethnic sectors will be more likely to live in ethnic neighborhoods.
CONTROL VARIABLES

RESULTS
ETHNIC NEIGHBORHOODS AND LOS ANGELES IN NEW YORK

Two life-cycle indicators are included as control variables: the person's age and whether the person lives in a married-couple household. The theoretical models offer no clear expectations about the effects of these variables. Young adults may be more likely than older people of the same immigrant generation to wish to leave the enclave. But it could also be argued that older people have had more time in which to exercise this option. Married-couple households may have more residential options than single persons, although in some instances it might be expected that they would prefer-in raising their children-to live in the enclave. We also include a variable representing city versus suburbanlocation. Because a few tracts cross city boundaries and therefore include both city and suburban portions, we define this variable as the proportionof tract residents in its suburban portion (ranging from 0 to 1). (Where this proportionwas less than .01 or greater than .99, it was rounded to 0 or 1.) Inclusion of this variable is subject to criticism because suburban location itself is an important residential outcome, likely to be related to other variables in the model. However, we examined the results for equations with and without suburbanlocation as a predictor, and we found that its inclusion does not substantially change the interpretation of effects of other variables. The purpose of this variable is to test whether, having controlled for other factors, group members who live in the suburbs are less likely than those in the central city to live in residential enclaves, as traditionally supposed.

Using the methods described above, we identified ethnic neighborhoods for every group in the study. This section summarizes their number, location, and ethnic composition. Tables la and lb categorize census tracts as those that are in ethnic neighborhoods and those that are outside of them, in cities and in suburbs. The number of tracts in each category are listed for both New York (Table la) and Los Angeles (Table Ib), as well as the numberof group members and the percentage of the region's group members in those tracts.Additional indicators include the percentage of the neighborhood population that is from each ethnic group, and the percentage of non-Hispanic whites. These latter two indicators are weighted averages, where the weight is the number of group members in the tract. Hence, they are equivalent to the isolation index (exposure of the group to itself) and the exposure index (exposure to non-Hispanic whites) for each category of tracts. These tables demonstrate that ethnic neighborhoods contain group concentrations that are far above each group's average representationin the region, but modest concentrations in absolute terms. Concentrations range from about 5 percent for the smallest groups up to about 30 percent (and considerably higher for Mexicans). Even at these concentrations, no group has less than 30 percent of its members in such locales, and for some groups a majority is in ethnic neighborhoods. Ethnic neighborhoods in New York are mostly urban, while those in Los Angeles are more often found in suburbia. Exposure to non-Hispanic whites is uniformly higher for group members who live outside of ethnic neighborhoods,particularly in the suburbs. There are substantial variations within these parameters: (1) For two groups in New York, a majority of their members live in ethnic neighborhoods: Dominicans (65.4 percent) and AfroCaribbeans (55.2 percent). Chinese (48.4 percent), Koreans (49.3 percent), and Cubans (42.3 percent) are also high. Indians (38.9 percent) and Filipinos (31.3 percent) are at the lower end. The range in Los Ange-

IMMIGRANT ENCLAVES

AND ETHNIC COMMUNITIES

309

Table la. Distribution of Group Members across Different Kinds of Neighborhoods: City Ethnic Group and Characteristic Ethnic Group Neighborhood Nongroup Neighborhood

New York, 1990 Suburb

Ethnic Group Neighborhood

Nongroup Neighborhood

Afro-Caribbean
Number of tracts Number of Afro-Caribbean Percent of region's Afro-Caribbeans Mean percent Afro-Caribbean Mean percent non-Hispanic white 361 260,273 50.5 28.5 8.3 2,124 147,873 28.7 5.7 23.4 29 24,044 4.7 18.3 27.7 2,047 83,147 16.1 5.7 49.8

Cuban
Number of tracts Number of Cubans Percent region's Cubans Mean percent Cuban Mean percent non-Hispanic white 68 23,458 15.0 9.2 34.4 2,417 54,700 35.0 1.8 40.7 63 42,702 27.3 25.7 32.7 2,013 35,421 22.7 1.3 75.1

Dominican
Number of tracts Number of Dominicans Percent region's Dominicans Mean percent Dominican Mean percent non-Hispanic white 298 253,875 62.9 31.4 10.0 2,187 105,317 26.1 4.4 30.8 17 10,045 2.5 14.5 18.2 2,059 34,693 8.6 5.5 52.0

Asian Indian
Number of tracts Number of Asian Indians Percent region's Asian Indians Mean percent Asian Indian Mean percent non-Hispanic white 219 51,709 27.6 8.4 35.8 2266 48,352 25.8 2.4 45.8 71 21,144 11.3 11.1 64.0 2,005 66,139 35.3 2.1 80.3

Chinese
Number of tracts Number of Chinese Percent region's Chinese Mean percent Chinese Mean percent non-Hispanic white 296 153,625 48.4 30.9 37.9 2,189 90,773 28.6 3.8 56.6
a

2076 72,712 22.9 2.7 83.0

Filipino
Number of tracts Number of Filipinos Percent region's Filipinos Mean percent Filipino Mean percent non-Hispanic white 141 27,323 26.1 8.1 39.1 2,344 33,053 31.6 2.1 53.6 30 5,393 5.2 4.3 68.8 2,046 38,810 37.1 1.6 78.0

Korean
Number of tracts Number of Koreans Percent region's Koreans Mean percent Korean Mean percent non-Hispanic white
a

152 46,058 39.2 12.7 41.9

2,333 28,184 24.0 1.9 63.6

34 11,287 9.6 7.9 76.8

2,042 32,077 27.3 1.5 83.2

There are no Chinese suburban neighborhoods in New York.

310

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL

REVIEW

Table lb. Distributionof Group Membersacross Different Kinds of Neighborhoods:Los Angeles, 1990 City Ethnic Group Nongroup Neighborhood Neighborhood 160 60,487 43.3 8.6 13.3 181 698,235 18.7 69.8 9.9 194 140,161 51.0 16.0 13.6 39 28,109 9.1 29.3 10.8 112 65,575 22.2 14.0 26.6 41 13,759 7.8 14.0 34.3 64 43,311 22.3 19.3 20.7 27 14,387 9.9 12.5 30.1 914 35,316 25.3 2.1 30.5 893 842,143 22.5 29.2 34.1 880 60,981 22.2 3.3 30.6 1,035 60,934 19.8 3.1 48.8 962 68,761 23.3 2.9 45.8 1,033 47,003 26.6 2.4 49.3 1,010 42,683 22.0 2.4 52.7 1,047 32,906 22.6 2.0 39.2 Suburb Ethnic Group Nongroup Neighborhood Neighborhood 24 7,504 5.4 5.0 7.9 213 995,188 26.6 70.5 12.5 24 12,370 4.5 6.7 8.6 111 117,786 38.3 23.4 31.6 75 50,718 17.2 13.5 34.2 88 43,186 24.4 15.8 42.2 92 40,376 20.8 9.4 51.6 116 51,046 35.1 13.1 42.8 1,466 36,343 26.0 1.5 36.9 1,277 1,200,877 32.1 24.6 52.2 1,466 61,276 22.3 2.5 31.9 1,379 100,952 32.8 3.3 59.7 1,415 110,060 37.3 2.6 55.0 1,402 72,932 41.2 1.9 61.8 1,398 67,828 34.9 2.5 59.3 1,374 47,125 32.4 1.9 53.1

Ethnic Groupand Characteristic

Numberof tracts Numberof Guatemalans Percentof region's Guatemalans Mean percentGuatemalan Mean percentnon-Hispanicwhite
Mexican

Numberof tracts Numberof Mexicans Percentof region's Mexicans Mean percentMexican Mean percentnon-Hispanicwhite
Salvadoran

Numberof tracts Numberof Salvadorans Percentof region's Salvadorans Mean percentSalvadoran Mean percentnon-Hispanicwhite
Chinese

Numberof tracts Numberof Chinese Percentof region's Chinese Mean percentChinese Mean percentnon-Hispanicwhite
Filipino

Numberof tracts Numberof Filipinos Percentof region's Filipinos Mean percentFilipino Mean percentnon-Hispanicwhite
Japanese

Numberof tracts Numberof Japanese Percentof region's Japanese Mean percentJapanese Mean percentnon-Hispanicwhite
Korean

Numberof tracts Numberof Koreans Percentof region's Koreans Mean percentKorean Mean percentnon-Hispanicwhite
Vietnamese

Numberof tracts Numberof Vietnamese Percentof region's Vietnamese Mean percentVietnamese Mean percentnon-Hispanicwhite

IMMIGRANT ENCLAVES

AND ETHNIC COMMUNITIES

311

les is from Salvadorans (55.5 percent) to Japanese (32.3 percent) and Filipinos (39.4 percent). (2) The New York ethnic neighborhoods are mostly located in the central cities rather than in suburbs (by a factor of 5 to 1 or more; at the extreme, we identify no suburban Chinese tracts). Cubans are an exception: The big Cuban neighborhoods (found especially in New Jersey) are suburban.By contrast, in Los Angeles several groups' neighborhoods are predominantly suburban: the Mexicans, Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese. Only the Salvadoran and Guatemalan neighborhoods are overwhelmingly found in the city. (3) Some census tracts have extremely high concentrations of group members, but the levels of ethnic concentration experienced by the average group member in an ethnic neighborhood are often modest. In New York, they range from a low value of 4.3 percent Filipino in Filipino suburban neighborhoods to a high of around 30 percent in Afro-Caribbean, Dominican, and Chinese city neighborhoods. There is a clear distinction between city and suburban neighborhoods: For most New York groups (Cubans and Indians are exceptions), their city neighborhoods have much higher shares of group members. Because of the large size of the Mexican population in Los Angeles, Mexican neighborhoods have a majority of Mexican residents-about 70 percent in both city and suburb. Neighborhoods of other groups have much smaller shares, from a low of 5 percent Guatemalan in this group's few suburbantracts to nearly 30 percent in urban Chinese zones. Unlike New York, Los Angeles's suburban neighborhoods in many cases are as ethnic as those in the city-there is virtually no difference for Mexicans, Filipinos, Japanese, and Vietnamese. (4) Exposure to non-Hispanic whites generally follows the inverse of the pattern described above. In every case, exposure is higher outside of ethnic neighborhoods, sometimes by a small amount (only about 6 to 7 percentage points for suburbanKoreans and urban Cubans in New York) and sometimes by wide margins (suburban Dominicans and Mexicans outside of ethnic neighborhoods and urbanKoreans in Los Angeles

live in majority-white areas, compared with 20 percent white or less in ethnic neighborhoods). Regardless of whether people live in ethnic neighborhoods, exposure to whites is much greater in the suburbs than in the city. (In Los Angeles there are two exceptions, Salvadorans and Guatemalans, whose exposure to whites is low, and no higher in suburbs than in the city.) In this respect, suburban residence does imply a degree of spatial assimilation.
CHARACTERISTICS NEIGHBORHOODS OF ETHNIC

An initial way to assess the immigrant enclave and ethnic community models is by comparing neighborhoods at the aggregate level. Tables 2a and 2b present the pertinent data (the average tract values in each category of neighborhoodweighted by the number of group members in each tract).Are ethnic neighborhoods more likely to be made up of immigrantswith limited English language facility, as posited by the immigrant enclave model? Do they also serve a low-income population with low occupational standing? Or is there evidence of other kinds of neighborhoods, ethnic neighborhoods that may offer a resource-rich living environment for at least some group members? AND LANGUAGE.For every (1) NATIVITY ethnic group, New York's urban ethnic neighborhoods include a high proportion of immigrants (40 to 50 percent). Such neighborhoods in Los Angeles (with the exception of Japanese neighborhoods with only 31.5 percent immigrants) are even more strongly weighted toward the foreign born-around 60 percent in four cases. In this respect, these neighborhoods resemble immigrant enclaves. The language variables lead to the same conclusion (here we disregard AfroCaribbeans, who mainly have English as a native language). Except for the Japanese, ethnic neighborhoods in the cities have modest proportions (less than half) of residents who speak only English, combined with very large shares of group members (more than two-thirds) who speak their native language (for Hispanic national-origin groups, the reference is to the percentage of all Hispanics in the tract who speak Spanish). For some groups, suburban ethnic neigh-

312

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL

REVIEW

Table 2a. Ethnic Compositionand Characteristicsof Different Kinds of Neighborhoods:New York, 1990 City Ethnic Group Nongroup Neighborhood Neighborhood 39.9 75.1 $32,061 15.5 25.2 45.3 31.3 87.1 $26,447 18.9 19.6 42.4 28.2 87.6 $19,245 34.3 17.5 26.1 57.2 $24,895 25.1 25.5 32.2 51.9 87.4 $29,836 19.1 30.8 30.1 51.9 87.8 $26,372 22.5 26.4 31.5 54.9 68.0 $31,410 17.4 30.5 Suburb Ethnic Group Nongroup Neighborhood Neighborhood 25.9 75.3 $40,147 10.6 27.0 51.9 26.9 93.8 $28,655 14.6 20.9 45.1 25.6 88.2 $24,778 20.5 13.9 25.6 65.1 78.2 $47,320 5.1 35.7 17.2 78.8 $43,572 9.4 31.2 16.3 77.1 82.9 $47,322 6.3 33.8 26.1 60.8 86.2 $37,065 11.5 25.2 15.6 78.5 64.9 $53,503 4.9 37.9

Ethnic Groupand Characteristic

Mean percentimmigrant Mean percentspeakingEnglish only Medianhouseholdincome Mean percentin poverty Mean percenthigh occupationstatus
Cuban

Mean percentimmigrant Mean percentspeakingEnglish only Mean percentspeaking Spanish Medianhousehold income Mean percentin poverty Mean percenthigh occupationstatus
Dominican

Mean percentimmigrant Mean percentspeakingEnglish only Mean percentspeaking Spanish Medianhousehold income Mean percentin poverty Mean percenthigh occupationstatus
Asian Indian

48.1 Mean percentimmigrant 41.3 only Mean percentspeakingEnglish 65.5 Mean percentspeakingIndic languages $32,868 Medianhousehold income 13.5 Mean percentin poverty 26.4 Mean percenthigh occupationstatus

(Continued on next page)

borhoods have densities of immigrantsequal to those in the city: Cubans and Dominicans in New York, Salvadorans in Los Angeles (and lower but still quite high, Guatemalans and Mexicans in Los Angeles). For these groups, the percentage speaking only English is remarkablylow, and a high percentage of group members speak their native language. We are reminded again of the immigrant enclave where living in an ethnic environment facilitates daily life for people less fluent in English. Some other suburban ethnic neighborhoods have immigrant concentrations that

are similar to (sometimes lower than) those of nonethnic neighborhoods in the city: Afro-Caribbeans,Indians, Filipinos, and Koreans in New York, Filipinos, Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese in Los Angeles. With respect to language, there are several suburban cases in which the percentage of all residents in ethnic neighborhoods who speak only English is greater than is found in nonethnic city neighborhoods, but that nonetheless have the highest shares of group members who speak their native language: Indians, Filipinos, and Koreans in New York.A similar but less pronounced result is

IMMIGRANT ENCLAVES
(Table 2a continued)

AND ETHNIC COMMUNITIES

313

EthnicGroupand Characteristic
Chinese

City Ethnic Group Nongroup Neighborhood Neighborhood 50.6 32.5 90.4 $26,609 18.1 24.6 41.2 46.1 79.1 $33,236 14.1 29.4 52.5 36.2 90.3 $32,823 12.5 28.8 29.6 57.0 83.0 $33,504 15.2 35.2 31.7 55.7 72.6 $34,163 13.7 34.8 30.2 58.4 85.3 $35,182 12.8 36.8

Suburb Ethnic Group Nongroup Neighborhood Neighborhood

Mean percentimmigrant Mean percentspeakingEnglish only Mean percentspeakingChinese Medianhouseholdincome Mean percentin poverty Mean percenthigh occupationstatus
Filipino

15.2 80.7 79.6 $58,162 4.4 41.9

Mean percentimmigrant Mean percentspeakingEnglish only Mean percentspeakingTagalag Medianhouseholdincome Mean percentin poverty Mean percenthigh occupationstatus
Korean

20.4 71.9 82.0 $46,243 4.9 34.3 27.4 65.6 90.3 $54,872 4.1 43.5

15.7 78.8 69.1 $50,700 5.3 36.2 14.9 80.7 72.3 $56,291 4.2 40.5

Mean percentimmigrant Mean percentspeakingEnglish only Mean percentspeakingKorean Medianhouseholdincome Mean percentin poverty Mean percenthigh occupationstatus
a The effect

is supressedbecause there are no Chinese suburban neighborhoodsin New York.

found for Koreans and Vietnamese in Los Angeles. These suburban zones are ethnic neighborhoods, but they do not appear particularly "immigrant"-unlike their city counterparts. (2) SOCIOECONOMIC STANDING. Looking only at nativity and language, almost all ethnic neighborhoodsin cities seem to match the immigrantenclave model, while substantial departuresare found in the suburbs. Deviations from socioeconomic characteristics associated with the immigrant enclave are found in both city and suburb. We begin with the comparison of ethnic and nonethnic neighborhoods in cities. In both regions, all groups outside of their ethnic neighborhoods generally live in city tracts with a median household income of $25,000 to $35,000. This is near the average income level for the city, meaning that these dispersed members of new immigrantgroups

appear to live in socioeconomically typical urban districts. (The average white urban resident, though, lives in slightly more affluent areas, with median incomes closer to $40,000). A natural finding from the standpoint of the assimilation model would be for ethnic neighborhoods to be much poorer than these are. This is the case for Dominicans in New York:The average income level of Dominican neighborhoods (weighted by the size of the Dominican population) is under $20,000 and is about $7,000 less than the nongroup neighborhoods where other Dominicans tend to live. Dominican neighborhoods have a much higher poverty rate (by 12 percentage points) and a lower share of workers with professional, managerial, or technical occupations (by 9 percentage points). This Dominican pattern is replicated by several other groups in their city neighbor-

314

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL

REVIEW

Los of Table 2b. Ethnic Compositionand Characteristics DifferentKinds of Neighborhoods: Angeles,1990 City Ethnic Group Nongroup Neighborhood Neighborhood 61.6 24.4 86.2 $19,574 30.5 14.6 51.6 22.5 80.5 $26,223 25.6 11.3 60.1 25.4 85.7 $20,570 29.1 15.4 58.1 18.8 91.9 $23,943 23.4 19.7 38.3 46.8 81.7 $30,336 20.0 23.0 36.6 50.8 78.1 $29,508 20.3 23.4 37.6 47.1 81.0 $30,666 19.8 22.6 33.6 56.3 78.3 $38,394 15.0 33.9 Suburb Ethnic Group Nongroup Neighborhood Neighborhood 49.5 27.6 84.6 $24,622 25.1 11.7 43.8 26.6 77.2 $27,631 20.5 12.5 56.6 15.5 83.9 $24,131 23.5 9.9 41.8 42.8 87.6 $43,601 12.0 35.3 33.7 49.3 74.5 $34,756 15.1 22.6 22.7 65.9 67.0 $38,249 11.4 27.3 35.2 46.4 75.3 $32,913 16.8 21.3 23.3 67.2 77.4 $49,144 8.1 36.3

Ethnic Groupand Characteristic

Mean percentimmigrant Mean percentspeakingEnglish only Mean percentspeaking Spanish Medianhouseholdincome Mean percentin poverty Mean percenthigh occupationstatus
Mexican

Mean percentimmigrant Mean percentspeakingEnglish only Mean percentspeaking Spanish Medianhousehold income Mean percentin poverty Mean percenthigh occupationstatus
Salvadoran

Mean percentimmigrant Mean percentspeakingEnglish only Mean percentspeaking Spanish Medianhousehold income Mean percentin poverty Mean percenthigh occupationstatus
Chinese

Mean percentimmigrant Mean percentspeakingEnglish only Mean percentspeakingChinese Medianhouseholdincome Mean percentin poverty Mean percenthigh occupationstatus

(Continued on next page)

hoods, most strongly by Chinese in New York and Los Angeles, and Guatemalans, Mexicans, Salvadorans, Filipinos, and Koreans in Los Angeles. But this result is not uniform: The city neighborhoods of Afro-Caribbeans in New York and Vietnamese in Los Angeles are more affluent than the nonethnic neighborhoods where group members live, and there is little difference for Indians and Filipinos in New York or for Japanese in Los Angeles. Even in the city, the economic standing of group neighborhoods sometimes corre-

sponds to what would be expected of ethnic communities. Group neighborhoods in the suburbs sometimes have equivalent economic standing to suburban nongroup neighborhoods, as in the cases of Filipinos and Koreans in suburbanLos Angeles and New York and of Japanese in Los Angeles. Further,it is routine to find that group members who live in an ethnic neighborhood in the suburbs are in a more affluent environment than their counterparts who live in nonethnic neighborhoods in the city. This is true for all

IMMIGRANT ENCLAVES
(Table 2b continued)

AND ETHNIC COMMUNITIES

315

Ethnic Groupand Characteristic

City EthnicGroup Nongroup Neighborhood Neighborhood 47.8 37.2 75.6 $31,144 16.3 24.4 31.5 56.8 47.1 $37,058 11.8 35.1 61.5 27.2 87.5 $28,195 22.3 24.1 45.6 37.6 90.1 $39,054 14.3 20.4 33.9 55.0 66.9 $35,403 15.0 29.0 31.4 58.3 51.3 $38,477 14.3 33.6 32.6 58.3 83.0 $37,947 14.0 33.2 36.6 49.9 85.2 $32,013 18.4 24.3

Suburb EthnicGroup Nongroup Neighborhood Neighborhood 36.6 48.8 69.4 $45,628 8.7 30.4 30.1 57.4 50.3 $46,626 7.6 38.5 33.4 57.2 88.3 $49,432 8.1 38.6 37.8 49.8 87.4 $37,885 14.1 25.6 22.8 66.1 62.2 $42,313 9.1 30.7 21.5 69.9 42.8 $48,715 7.5 37.0 23.7 67.1 82.9 $47,051 8.0 35.9 25.4 63.3 81.8 $44,211 9.6 32.0

Mean percentimmigrant Mean percentspeakingEnglish only Mean percentspeakingTagalag Medianhouseholdincome Mean percentin poverty Mean percenthigh occupationstatus
Japanese

Mean percentimmigrant Mean percentspeakingEnglish only Mean percentspeakingJapanese Medianhouseholdincome Mean percentin poverty Mean percenthigh occupationstatus
Korean

Mean percentimmigrant Mean percentspeakingEnglish only Mean percentspeakingKorean Medianhouseholdincome Mean percentin poverty Mean percenthigh occupationstatus
Vietnamese

Mean percentimmigrant Mean percentspeakingEnglish only Mean percentspeakingVietnamese Medianhouseholdincome Mean percentin poverty Mean percenthigh occupationstatus

groups in both regions, often by wide margins. These aggregate data, then, suggest considerable reason to doubt that upward mobility must imply leaving ethnic locales. The ethnic neighborhood in cities is often, but not always, a low-income area resembling an immigrant enclave. But even when it has a strong immigrant character,the ethnic neighborhood is not always poor, and sometimes it actually represents the most advantaged living environment in the metropolis.

MODELS OF THE LOCATION PROCESS: PREDICTING RESIDENCE IN AN ETHNIC NEIGHBORHOOD

These aggregate analyses demonstrate that ethnic neighborhoods can take many forms and that members of most groups have both the "immigrant enclave" and the "ethnic community" options. But what is the predominant pattern for these groups? To answer this question, we use logistic regression to analyze the characteristicsof group members who live inside and outside ethnic

31 6

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL

REVIEW

neighborhoods. Table 3a presents results for New York groups, and Table 3b presents results for Los Angeles. A small number,none statistically significant, have been suppressed by the Census Research Data Center for confidentiality reasons. We summarize the results in two ways: first, by reviewing the consistency of effects of each set of predictor variables, and second, by identifying clusters of groups that have similar patterns of effects. The most successful predictors of residing in an ethnic neighborhood are language and nativity: Almost without exception, those born in the United States and those who speak only English at home are less likely to live in ethnic neighborhoods. The exception is the Japanese, and this is not surprising. The Japanese have a long-standing presence in southern California, and Japanese neighborhoods are composed of the descendents of earlier immigrants. More recently arrived Japanese are often not "immigrants"in the usual sense, but sojourners with ties to Japanese businesses. Possibly the language effect is a reciprocal one-not speaking English well may be less the cause than the consequence of living in a segregated setting. Still, these results are powerful evidence that assimilation in its cultural dimension is consistently associated with living in nonethnic settings. Education also often has the expected effect (the exceptions are for Japanese and Afro-Caribbeans). Among the socioeconomic variables with more specific links to market resources we find variable results. Income, the best indicator of market constraints on home-seeking, has a significant negative effect on living in an ethnic neighborhood for six groups. For six other groups it has no effect, and for three others (Koreans and Filipinos in New York, Vietnamese in Los Angeles) the more affluent group members are more likely to live in ethnic areas. Housing tenure is also directly tied to the housing search process. For nine groups, renters are significantly more likely to live in ethnic neighborhoods, as predicted by the assimilation model. For three groups, there is no effect, and in the remaining three (Afro-Caribbeans, Indians, and Filipinos in New York) it is homeowners who are more likely to live in ethnic areas.

Labor market effects are also mixed. Self-employment has only three significant effects, all negative (Indians and Filipinos in New York, Mexicans in Los Angeles). Working in ethnic labor market sectors is understood in the assimilation model to hold people within ethnic social networks. Nine groups show clear evidence of such an effect, but there is no effect for Dominicans and Koreans in New York or for Filipinos in Los Angeles, and there are mixed effects for Indians in New York. Filipinos in their enclave sectors in New York are actually less likely to live in ethnic neighborhoods, as are Koreans in their worker niche in Los Angeles. Suburban location has negative effects for all groups in New York except Cubans, whose Union City, New Jersey, neighborhoods have an urban appearance despite their classification in the census as suburban. The effect for Chinese is suppressed because there are no suburban Chinese neighborhoods in New York. In Los Angeles, however, the groups are evenly split, four significantly positive and four significantly negative. The contrast between regions reflects their differences in spatial structure and emphasizes that suburban residence can be compatible with an ethnic environment. The evidence here strongly supports the hypothesis that living in ethnic neighborhoods is linked with foreign birth, limited English language facility, and fewer years of education-these results are very much in accord with spatial assimilation theory. But the effects of economic variables do not conform so well with the immigrant enclave model, and in some instances they indicate that people with fewer economic constraints are equally likely, or even more likely, to live in ethnic zones, as the ethnic community model predicts. That is, for some groups, the acculturationeffects point in one direction, but the economic variables point in another. We should not be surprised to find some mixed results. In many studies of residential segregation, what is true for one group is not true for another (on this point, see Galster, Metzger, and Waite 1999). Yet this specific pattern, in which acculturation and economic constraint seem to be decoupled in

IMMIGRANT ENCLAVES

AND ETHNIC COMMUNITIES

317

Table 3a.Unstandardized Logistic Coefficients Predicting Residence in an Ethnic Neighborhood: New York, 1990 Variable Independent Nativity Post-1985 immigrant 1965-1985 immigrant Pre-1965 immigrant Language Speaks English well Speaks English poorly AfroCaribbeanDominican Chinese .644*** (.083) .717*** (.064) .106 (.091) .502*** (.102) .445*** (.093) -.062 (.120) .466*** (.101) .348*** (.092) .027 (.117) Asian Indian .704*** (.191) .605** (.189)
a

Cuban

Korean

Filipino

1.165*** 1.406*** .651*** (.191) (.285) (.167) 1.226*** 1.032*** .544** (.186) (.282) (.096) .429*** (.104)
a a

.053 (.054) .291** (.109) -.008 (.007) .001

.088 (.112)

.884*** (.106)

.498*** 1.277*** 1.102*** .735*** (.133) (.178) (.120) (.065) .514*** 1.661*** (.100) (.126) -.035*** (.007) -.002**
(.001)

.398*** 1.171*** (.115) (.112) -.028*** (.006) -.001

1.358*** .685** (.222) (.184) -.026** (.009) .002**

Education Householdincome Renter Employment Enclave sector Workersector Ownersector Self-employed

-.061 *** -.027*** (.007) (.006) -.002**

-.048*** (.012) .002**

-.003***
(.001)

-.687*** (.052)

.830*** (.080)

.204*** -.321 *** (.053) (.060)

.713*** (.061)

.318*** -.485*** (.074) (.078)

.266*** (.067) .311*** (.081)

.007 (.061) .096 (.093)

.201** (.063)
a

-.253** (.084) .237* (.104) -.149* (.060) -.261 ** (.095) -.002 (.002) .512*** (.060) -1.219*** (.058) -.586** (.227) 777.9

.548*** (.099)
a

.011 (.071)
.000***

-.318*** (.076)
.000***

(.000) .180** (.064) -.038 (.100) .002 (.002) .264*** (.053) -.213 (.142) .066 (.080) .008** (.003) .174* (.070)

(.000) .059 (.109) -.521 ** (.167) .003 (.003) .244*** (.068)

.204*** -.080 (.085) (.058) -.105 (.107) -.004* (.002) .070 (.047) .131 (.107) -.006** (.002) -. 162*** (.048)

-.150 (.093) .014 (.092) .006** (.002) .174*** (.053)

Age Married location Suburban

-1.994*** -1.909*** (.081) (.066) .541*** (.144) 1,374.4 .139 (.183) 1,170.5

1.612*** -1.279*** -1.891*** (.086) (.075) (.053) -3.614*** -2.368*** (.337) (.189) 2,423.7 772.4 -.800** (.270) 792.5

Constant

-.580*** (.168) 4,076.2

Model x2

errors.Omittedcategoriesare:for nativity, "bornin the U.S."; Note: Numbersin parenthesesare standard for language,"speaksEnglish only"; for employment,"mainstream economy." a The effect is supressedbecause of U.S. Census Bureauconfidentialityprocedures. b The effect is neighborhoodsin New York. supressedbecause there are no Chinese suburban
*p <.05

** <.01

*** < .001 (two-tailed tests)

318

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL

REVIEW

Table 3b.Unstandardized Logistic Coefficients Predicting Residence in an Ethnic Neighborhood: Los Angeles, 1990 Independent Variable
Nativity

Mexican Chinese Korean Vietnamese Salvadoran Filipino Japanese Guatemalan .050 (.081) .483* (.196) .366*** .532*** 1.230*** -.257** (.100) (.108) (.194) (.096) .550* (.275) .694*** (.199) .606** (.197)
a

Post-1985 immigrant 1965-1985 immigrant Pre-1965 immigrant

.255*** .515** .365*** .499*** .950*** -.608*** .360 (.062) (.192) (.091) (.099) (.190) (.081) (.271) .232** .213 (.088) (.284) .141 (.118) .160 (.132) .390 (.246) -.694*** (.084)
a

Language

Speaks English well Speaks English poorly

.558*** .167 (.066) (.140) .767*** .291* (.081) (.138)

.928*** .783*** 1.067*** .350*** .819*** .116 (.094) (.084) (.128) (.061) (.170) (.148) 1.321 (.108) .633*** 1.278*** .635*** 1.038*** .291* (.134) (.132) (.089) (.175) (.147) -.019** -.005 (.007) (.009) .000
(.000)

Education Householdincome Renter

-.050*** -.035*** -.056*** -.017* (.006) (.006) (.006) (.007) -.004*** -.007*** -.001
(.001) (.001) (.000)

-.039*** -.026*** (.007) (.006) .004*** -.007***

.001
(.000)

.000
(.000)

-.097 (.050)

1.109*** .399*** -.011 (.077) (.052) (.048)

.540*** .103 (.054) (.055)

.417*** 1.092*** (.062) (.093)

Employment

Enclave sector Workersector Ownersector Self-employed

.067 (.051)

.416*** .230** .010 (.085) (.075) (.053)

.032 (.062)

.028 (.144)

-.162 (.102)

.115 (.129)

.277** .273** .280** .070 (.105) (.099) (.095) (.143) .138 (.097) -.318** (.099) .002 (.002) -.08 (.043) -.001 (.065) .099 (.103) -.004 (.002) -.018 (.055) -.016 (.070) .001 (.002) .039 (.063) -.080 (.106)

-.521 ** .385*** .439*** .210** (.175) (.059) (.085) (.078) -.011 (.066) .034 (.059) -.015 (.068) .075 (.075) .048 (.076) -.059 (.103) .047 (.083) -.159 (.110) .003 (.003) -.172** (.055)

Age Married Suburban location

.006*** -.001 (.002) (.002) -.008 (.046)

.014*** -.007** (.002) (.002) .115* (.055)

-.202*** .047 (.050) (.048)

.239*** .110* (.053) (.049)

.206*** -2.431*** 1.427*** -.696*** -.549*** .835*** 1.076*** -1.949*** (.043) (.062) (.054) (.044) (.048) (.049) (.057) (.065) -.441 *** -.106 -1.947***-1.305***-2.264***-2.117***-2.059*** -.822** (.133) (.250) (.151) (.150) (.223) (.166) (.323) (.267) 569.2 2,941.5 1,595.7 637.8 824.8 588.8 601.28 1,832.6

Constant

ModelX2

Note: Numbersin parenthesesare standard errors.Omittedcategoriesare: for nativity, "bornin the U.S."; for language,"speaksEnglish only"; for employment,"mainstream economy." a The effect is supressedbecause of U.S. Census Bureauconfidentialityprocedures. * <.05 **p< .01 *** < .001 (two-tailedtests)

IMMIGRANT ENCLAVES

AND ETHNIC COMMUNITIES

319

their effects for some groups, is exactly what the ethnic community model predicts. Let us look at the results in another way, determining, for each group in the study, the overall weight of evidence. We have already noted that the Japanese are an exceptional case, whose ethnic neighborhoods tend to draw U.S.-born Japanese and whose enclave workers are less likely than others to live in these areas. What about the other 14 groups? We count as evidence for the immigrant enclave model those groups for which at least one economic variable (income, tenure, or employment) supports the assimilation prediction and for which none contradicts it. The Cubans provide an excellent example of this pattern-in fact, every coefficient suggests that those Cubans with more choices (higher income, homeowners, not working in ethnic sectors) are less likely to live in Cuban neighborhoods. Seven other groups clearly fit the same pattern: Afro-Caribbeans, Dominicans, and Chinese in New York; Mexicans, Salvadorans, Chinese, and Guatemalans in Los Angeles. We count as evidence for the ethnic community model those groups for which neither income, nor tenure, nor employment conforms to the assimilation prediction. Two cases meet this standard: Filipinos in both New York and Los Angeles. In both locations, Filipinos with more education are less likely to live in Filipino neighborhoods, but the more direct economic indicators lead to anotherconclusion. In New York, it is homeowners, those with higher incomes, and those who work outside ethnic sectors who are more likely to reside in ethnic areas. In Los Angeles, what stands out is simply the absence of an economic effect on residence. For the four remaining groups, there are truly mixed results-at least one economic variable indicates that those with less options tend to live in ethnic areas, and at least one variable shows the opposite effect. The immigrant enclave model fares well overall, being fully supported in more than half the cases. But there is good evidence for the ethnic community model for two groups. We emphasize that spatial assimilation is evident in the effects of acculturation indicators for all of these groups and in the education effects for most of them. Evidence for economic constraintis strongest for the rela-

tively low-status Hispanic groups and AfroCaribbeans, and for the Chinese, who are known to have a bimodal class distribution (some relatively high-status members and many in the working class). Mixed results or findings supportive of the ethnic community model are found for several higher status groups: Filipinos in both regions, whose household income levels are comparable to those of non-Hispanic whites; Koreans, including many entrepreneursand immigrants with urban middle-class backgrounds; and Indians and Japanese, also relatively affluent minorities. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

We have evaluated the residential patternsof 15 groups of ethnic residents in New York City and Los Angeles in two different ways. Our approach provides information on the characteristicsof ethnic and nonethnic neighborhoods and on individuals' locations within or outside of ethnic neighborhoods. This is the first study to systematically identify ethnic neighborhoods, compare them with nonethnic neighborhoods, and estimate models predictingwhich group members live in these neighborhoods.The findings provide much supportfor the immigrant enclave hypothesis but also show that it cannot stand alone as a model for the spatial incorporation of new groups in the metropolis. Consider first the descriptions of ethnic and nonethnic neighborhoods for each group. The expected pattern is found for some groups: Their neighborhoods are predominantly in the central cities, and living in an ethnic neighborhood means also living in a disproportionately immigrant and lowincome locale. Although there has been no prior empirical evidence this is the pattern anticipatedby the spatial assimilation model and taken for granted by most researchers. Yet we have seen that some groups' neighborhoods are predominantly suburban, and the suburbanneighborhoods of a group may have higher concentrations of group members than do their city neighborhoods. In some cases, living in an ethnic neighborhood means living in a higher income area, compared with group members who live dispersed in the same portion of the metropolis. Thus, the depressed central-city enclave

320

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL

REVIEW

is not the only form of immigrant ethnic settlement, and it is time to develop alternative models to evaluate the exceptions. The ethnic community model provides a useful perspective of these divergent cases. Analyses at the individual level show that indicators of acculturation are inversely associated with residence in ethnic neighborhoods for almost all groups. In some cases, the ethnic neighborhood tends to be chosen by those for whom it serves their practical needs (as indicated by their socioeconomic position) for an inexpensive and congenial setting. And for several groups, the neighborhood may also link members to ethnic employment. These are the functions of immigrant enclaves. Eight groups in our study fit this model quite well. In two cases, however, the results diverge in a consistent way from the expectations of the immigrant enclave model: Economic advancement and participation in the mainstream labor force for Filipinos in New York and Los Angeles have no effects, or even the opposite of the expected effects. In these ways, Filipinos in New York and Los Angeles fit the alternative model of ethnic community. These Filipino neighborhoods have modest concentrations of group members (averaging less than 10 percent Filipino in New York, but reaching nearly 20 percent in Los Angeles). Yet in regions where Filipinos make up no more than 2 percent of the total population, we believe that such zones should not be ignored. Their significant spatial clustering, the fact that nearly one-third of a city's Filipinos live in these distinct areas, and the significant differences between Filipinos who live in these areas versus those who live elsewhere confirm that they are meaningful areas. We hypothesized that the immigrant enclave model would be associated with groups of labor immigrants, while the ethnic community model would be associated with groups of entrepreneursand professional immigrants. The results mostly supportthis expectation, although the stronger evidence weighs in on the side of the immigrant enclave. In designing this study, we set up a comparison between New York, as a representative of an older style of urban development, and Los Angeles, as a newer and more de-

centralized form of development. We did find greater suburbanization of immigrant neighborhoods in Los Angeles. More important, suburbanlocation emerges from these findings as a key contributorto the function of some ethnic neighborhoods as ethnic communities. Moving to the suburbs has previously been assumed to reduce the probability of living in ethnic neighborhoods. But its effect is sometimes in the opposite direction. Most groups had, by 1990, established settlements in suburbia-settlements that sometimes outweighed their city neighborhoods. Although suburbanethnic districts often stand out for their large share of immigrants and group members who speak their native languages, they always provide a higher status living context than do the ethnic or nonethnic central-city neighborhoods in which group members live. As a result, suburban ethnic neighborhoods provide an alternative destination for successful families, even for groups whose locational pattern generally corresponds well to the immigrant enclave model. We have discussed alternative models of the ethnic neighborhood assuming that each separate group we studied could be interpreted, more or less, through the lens of one type of ethnic neighborhood. This is only a first approximation. Processes of assimilation and self-segregation operate on every group to varying degrees. If we compared different neighborhoods of a single ethnic group, we might discover that some neighborhoods are better understoodas immigrant enclaves, others as ethnic communities, and still others as minority ghettos. The distinction between urban and suburban ethnic neighborhoodspartly illustratesthis point. In any single neighborhood, whatever its overall qualities, we might find that some residents are trappedwithin it, others use it as a temporarybase from which to rise, and others-those with the most choice-prefer it as a culturally agreeable environment. Such possibilities call for different research strategies than we have used here, especially for intensive comparative field studies and original surveys. We are near the limit of what can be accomplished through the analysis of publicly available census data. The assimilation model is based on a conception of the ethnic neighborhood as a re-

IMMIGRANT ENCLAVES

AND ETHNIC COMMUNITIES

321

ception area for new arrivals and an entry point into the ethnic labor market. But the process in which both the neighborhood and the niche job are avoided or left behind by successful group members is not universal. The ethnic neighborhood for some groups is a springboard,but for others it is a destination. This is not a time, if ever there were a time, for a one-pattern-fits-all theory of residential location. The challenge now is to develop a theory of ethnic diversity, of contradictory processes of assimilation and separation, and of the conditions under which one or the other direction prevails. John R. Logan is Distinguished Professorand Directorof the LewisMumford Center Comfor parative Urbanand Regional Researchat the at His University Albany,SUNY. mostrecentedited book is The New ChineseCity: Globalization and Market Reform (Blackwell Publishers,

2001). He continueshis researchon residential segregationwith the U.S. Census2000, as well as his workon historicalstudiesin New York and backto 1880. Chicagoextending RichardD. Alba is DistinguishedProfessorof at Sociologyand PublicPolicy at the University Albany, SUNY.His latest book, Remakingthe
American Mainstream, written with Victor Nee,

will be publishednextyear by HarvardUniversity Press. Wenquan Zhang is a Ph.D. candidatein Sociolat ogy at the University Albany,SUNY.His dissertationdeals with the secondarymigrationof in recentimmigrants the UnitedStatesas an indicator of spatial assimilation. His other research interests include spatial analysis using Geographic Information Systems. REFERENCES
Alba, Richard D., John R. Logan, and Kyle Crowder. 1997. "White Neighborhoods and Assimilation: The Greater New York Region, 1980-1990." Social Forces 75:883-909. Alba, Richard D., John R. Logan, and Brian Stults. 2000. "The Changing Neighborhood Contexts of the ImmigrantMetropolis." Social Forces 79:587-621. Alba, Richard D., John R. Logan, Brian Stults, Gilbert Marzan, and Wenquan Zhang. 1999. "ImmigrantGroups and Suburbs: A Reexamination of Suburbanizationand Spatial Assimilation." American Sociological Review 64: 446-60. Allen, James P. and Eugene Turner. 1997. The

Ethnic Quilt: Population Diversity in Southern California. Northridge, CA: Center for Geographic Studies, California State University. Anselin, Luc. 1995. "Local Indicators of Spatial Association-LISA." Geographical Analysis 27:93-115. Bobo, Lawrence D., Melvin L. Oliver, James H. Johnson Jr., and Abel Valenzuela. 2000. Prismatic Metropolis: Inequality in Los Angeles. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Bonacich, Edna. 1973. "A Theory of Middleman Minorities." American Sociological Review 38:583-94. Bozorgmehr, Mehdi, Claudia Der-Martirosian, and Georges Sabagh. 1996. "Middle Easterners: A New Kind of Immigrant"Pp. 345-78 in Ethnic Los Angeles, edited by Roger Waldinger and Mehdi Bozorgmehr. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Burgess, Ernest W. [1925] 1967. "The Growth of the City: An Introduction to a Research Project."Pp. 47-62 in The City, edited by R. E. Park, E. W. Burgess, and R. D. McKenzie. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Clark, W.A.V. 1991. "Residential Preferences and Neighborhood Racial Segregation: A Test of the Schelling Segregation Model." Demography 28:1-19. Crowder, Kyle. 1999. "Residential Segregation of West Indians in the New York/New Jersey Metropolitan Area: The Roles of Race and Ethnicity." International Migration Review 33:79-113. Feagin, Joe R. and Melvin P. Sikes. 1994. Living with Racism: The Black Middle-Class Experience. Boston, MA: Beacon. Galster, George. 1988. "Residential Segregation in American Cities: A Contrary Review." Population Research and Policy Review 7:93112. Galster, George, Kurt Metzger, and Ruth Waite. 1999. "Neighborhood Opportunity Structures of Immigrant Populations, 1980 and 1990." Housing Policy Debate 10:395-442. Gurock, Jeffrey S. 1979. WhenHarlem Was Jewish, 1870-1930. New York: Columbia University Press. Horton, John. 1995. The Politics of Diversity: Immigration, Resistance, and Change in Monterey Park, California. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Kasarda,John and Morris Janowitz. 1974. "Community Attachment in Mass Society." American Journal of Sociology 39:328-39. Laslett, John. 1996. "Historical Perspectives: Immigration and the Rise of a Distinctive Urban Region, 1900-1970." Pp. 39-78 in Ethnic Los Angeles, edited by R. Waldinger and M. Bozorgmehr. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

322

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL

REVIEW ImmigrantAmerica: A Portrait. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Rose, Harold. 1981. "The Black Professional and Residential Segregation in the American City." Pp. 127-48 in Ethnic Segregation in Cities, edited by C. Peach, V. Robinson, and S. Smith. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. Sanchez, George. 1993. Becoming Mexican American: Ethnicity, Culture, and Identity in Chicano Los Angeles, 1900-1945. New York: Oxford University Press. Schelling, Thomas. 1971. "Dynamic Models of Segregation." Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1:143-86. South, Scott and Kyle Crowder. 1997. "Escaping Distressed Neighborhoods: Individual, Community, and Metropolitan Influences." American Journal of Sociology 102:1040-84. Thomas, William and Florian Znaniecki. [1927] 1974. The Polish Peasant in Europe and America. Reprint, New York: Octagon. Wellman, Barry. 1979. "The Community Question: The Intimate Networks of East Yorkers." American Journal of Sociology 84:1201-31. Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Wirth, Louis. [1928] 1965. "The Ghetto." Pp. 84-98 in On Cities and Social Life, edited by L. Wirth. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. . 1938. "Urbanism as a Way of Life." American Journal of Sociology 44:3-24. Yinger, John. 1987. "The Racial Dimension of Urban Housing Markets in the 1980s." Pp. 4367 in Divided Neighborhoods: Changing Patterns of Racial Segregation, edited by G. Tobin. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Zhou, Min. 1992. Chinatown: The Socioeconomic Potential of an Urban Enclave. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Logan, John R., Richard D. Alba, Michael Dill, and Min Zhou. 2000. "Ethnic Segmentation in the American Metropolis: Increasing Divergence in Economic Incorporation, 19801990." International Migration Review 34:98132. Logan, John R., Richard D. Alba, Tom McNulty, and Brian Fisher. 1996. "Making a Place in the Metropolis: Locational Attainment in Cities and Suburbs."Demography 33:443-53. Logan, John R. and Harvey L. Molotch. 1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Marcuse, Peter. 1997. "The Enclave, the Citadel, and the Ghetto: What Has Changed in the PostFordist U.S. City." Urban Affairs Review 33:228-64. Massey, Douglas. 1985. "Ethnic Residential Segregation: A Theoretical Synthesis and Empirical Review." Sociology and Social Research 69:315-50. Massey, Douglas S. and Nancy A. Denton. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press. Mollenkopf, John. 1993. New York City in the 1980's: A Social, Economic, and Political Atlas. New York: Simon and Schuster. Nee, Victor and Jimy Sanders. 2001. "Understanding the Diversity of Immigrant Incorporation: A Form of Capital Model." Ethnic and Racial Studies 24:386-411. Philpott, Thomas Lee. 1978. The Slum and the Ghetto: Neighborhood Deterioration and Middle-Class Reform, Chicago, 1880-1930. New York: Oxford University Press. Portes, Alejandro and Leif Jensen. 1987. "What's an Ethnic Enclave: The Case for Conceptual Clarity." American Sociological Review 52: 768-7 1. Portes, Alejandro and Ruben Rumbaut. 1990.