American Apartheid

American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass
Author(s): Douglas S. Massey

Source: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 96, No. 2 (Sep., 1990), pp. 329-357
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2781105
Accessed: 23-09-2015 21:48 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
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 support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of
Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:48:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
American Apartheid: Segregation and the
Making of the Underclass'
Douglas S. Massey
Universityof Chicago
This articlearguesthatracialsegregation is crucialto explainingthe

emergenceof the urban underclassduringthe 1970s. A strongin-
teractionbetweenrisingratesofpovertyand highlevelsofresiden-
tial segregationexplains where, why, and in which groups the
underclassarose. This argumentis developedwithsimulationsthat
replicate the economic conditionsobserved among blacks and
whitesin metropolitan areas duringthe 1970sbut assumedifferent
conditionsof racial and class segregation.These data show how a
simpleincreasein the rate of minority povertyleads to a dramatic
risein theconcentration ofpovertywhenit occurswithina racially
segregatedcity. Increases in povertyconcentrationare, in turn,
associated with otherchanges in the socioeconomiccharacterof
neighborhoods,transforming them into physicallydeteriorated
areas of high crime,poor schools, and excessivemortalitywhere
welfare-dependent, female-headedfamiliesare the norm. Thus,
policiesto solve the socioeconomicproblemsof minorities will fail
unlesstheyare accompaniedbymeasuresforovercomingthedisad-
vantagescaused byracial discrimination and prejudicein thehous-
ing market.
By anymeasure,thecharacterofAmericanpovertychangedsignificantly
duringthe 1970s. The poor became poorerrelativeto therestof society,
and incomeinequalityincreased(Levy 1987). Povertybecamemoreper-
sistentas spells increased in frequencyand durationamong families
(Bane and Ellwood 1986; Corcoranet al. 1985; McLanahan, Garfinkel,
and Watson 1988). Povertyalso became more geographicallyconcen-
tratedwithininner-city neighborhoods(Bane and Jargowsky1988;Mas-
sey and Eggers 1990). These trendswere especiallyacute forblacks and
l This researchwas supportedby NICHD grantHD-24041,whosecontribution is

gratefullyacknowledged. I also thankNancyA. Dentonforpreparing theempirical
regressionsused in thisanalysis.Requestsforreprints
shouldbe sentto Douglas S.
Massey,PopulationResearchCenter,NORC/University ofChicago,1155East 60th
Street,Chicago,fllinois60637.
?) 1990by The University
of Chicago.All rightsreserved.
.50
0002-9602/91/9602-0003$01
AJS Volume 96 Number2 (September1990): 329-57 329
AmericanJournalof Sociology
PuertoRicans, promptingsomeobserversto posittheexistenceofa new,

spatiallyisolatedunderclassof persistently poor minority families(Glas-
gow 1981; Auletta 1982).
WilliamJ. Wilson(1987) has proposeda theoryto explaintheapparent
rise of thisminorityunderclass.He arguesthatpowerfuleconomicand
demographicforcestransformed the social environment of theinnercity
duringthe 1970s. The declineof manufacturing, the suburbanization of
blue-collaremployment,and the rise of the service sector eliminated
manywell-payingjobs forunskilledminoritiesand reducedthe pool of
marriageablemen, therebyundermining the strengthof the family,in-
creasingtherateof poverty,and isolatingmanyinner-city residentsfrom
accessible,middle-classoccupations.At the same time,theexpansionof
civil rightsgeneratednew opportunitiesfor middle-classblacks, who
movedout oftheghettoin largenumbers,leavingbehindan isolatedand
verypoor minoritycommunitywithoutthe institutions, resources,and
values necessaryforsuccessin modernsociety(Wilson1987,pp. 55-58).
My purposein thisarticleis to supplementWilson'stheoreticalargu-
mentbyintroducing residentialsegregation as a keyconditioning variable
in thesocial transformation of theghettoand to illustratethecrucialrole
itplaysin concentrating povertyand creatingtheunderclass.I agreewith
Wilson's main argument-that povertyconcentration has increasedin
U.S. cities,withperniciousconsequencesforminorities. I disagree,how-
ever, withhis hypothesisthatthistransformation was broughtabout by
the exodus of middle-classminority membersfromthe ghettoand with
his argumentthatindustrialrestructuring, in and of itself,was responsi-
ble for concentratingurban poverty.While these processesmay have
exacerbatedpovertyconcentration, neitherwas necessaryforitscreation.
In the absence of racial segregation,the economicdislocationsof the
1970swould nothave producedconcentrated povertyor led to theemer-
genceof a sociallyand spatiallyisolatedunderclass.
Althoughsome middle-classblacks were spatiallymobileduringthe
1970s, empiricalresultsare inconsistent withthe view thattheyleftthe
ghettoin largenumbers.First,levelsof racial segregation in largeurban
areas are highand show littlesignof decline(Massey and Denton 1987,
1988). Second, as educationand incomerise,thedegreeofblack segrega-
tiondoes notfall(Dentonand Massey 1988a). Third,althoughthedegree
of segregationbetweenpoor and richblacksincreasedslightlyduringthe
1970s, it is stilllowerthan that observedbetweenthe poor and richof
otherminoritygroups(Massey and Eggers 1990). Finally,multivariate
modelsshow thatrecentchangesin thepropensity forupper-and lower-
class blacks to live in different
neighborhoods are unrelatedto levelsand
trendsin black povertyconcentration (Massey and Eggers 1990).
In contrast,empiricalresearchconfirms Wilson'shypothesisthatpov-
330
AmericanApartheid
ertyconcentration increaseddramaticallyduringthe 1970s,particularly

forblacks outsidetheWest and Hispanics in theNortheast(Massey and
Eggers 1990). Instead of being caused by the departureof middle-class
blacksfromtheghetto,however,thesedevelopments are explainedstatis-
tically by a stronginteractionbetween the level of segregationand
changesin the structureof the incomedistribution.Groupsthatexperi-
enced both a highpovertyrate and a highdegreeof residentialsegrega-
tion(e.g., blacksand PuertoRicans) showedthehighestlevelsofpoverty
concentration, and thedegreeofpovertyconcentration rosemostdramat-
icallyin urban areas wherea sharpdownwardshiftin theincomedistri-
butionoccurredin a highlysegregatedenvironment (e.g., Chicago and
New York).
In this articleI explicatethese statisticalfindingsand illustratethe
mechanismby whichsegregationacts to concentrate poverty.I showthat
a sharp increasein a group'spovertyrate inevitablyproducesconcen-
tratedpovertywhen it occursunderconditionsof highsegregation-an
outcome that occurs withoutthe movementof middle-classminority
membersfromthe ghetto.I thenillustratehow an increasein poverty
concentration radicallytransforms the social and economicenvironment
ofpoorneighborhoods to instigatea seriesofself-reinforcing changesthat
lead to the creationof underclasscommunities.
HOW SEGREGATION CONCENTRATES POVERTY

In orderto demonstratethe effectof segregationon the concentration of
poverty,I constructa hypotheticalcity of 128,000 people distributed
among 16 equal-sized neighborhoodsof 8,000 personseach (see fig. 1).
The citycontains32,000 blacks and 96,000whites:a minority proportion
of 25%. The black populationis poorer,on average, than the white
populationand has a povertyrate of 20%, comparedwithonly10% for
whites.This idealizedpictureapproximatesthesituationin manyAmeri-
can citiescirca 1970. In Chicago, forinstance,blacksconstituted17% of
the metropolitanpopulationand had a povertyrate of 20%, compared
with6% forwhites;likewise,in theNew York metropolitan area, blacks
constituted17% of thepopulationand theirpovertyratewas 21%, com-
pared with 10% forwhites(Massey and Eggers 1990). For themoment,
we assume thereis no class segregationbetweenpoorand nonpoormem-
bers of eitherracial group.
Figure 1 shows what happens to the degreeof povertyconcentration
experiencedby blacks and whitesat different levels of racial segregation
whengrouppovertyratesand sizes are held constant.The figuredepicts
fourhypothetical citiesthatare identicalexceptforthedegreeofresiden-
tial segregationtheyimpose on blacks. Segregationlevels range from
331
CITY 1: NO RACIAL SEGREGATION CITY 2: LOW RACIAL SEGREGATION
b =2000 b =2000 b,=2000 b =2000 b,=O b,=O b,=O b,=0

wi=6000 w =6000 wiv=6000 w =6000 wi= 8000 wi= 8000 wi=8000 wi=8000
1 2 3 41 2 3 4
b,=2000 b= 2000 b= 2000 b= 2000 b =2666 b1=2666 b= 2666 b= 2666

w,=6000 w,=6000 w,=6000 w,=6000 w,=5334 w,= 5334 w,=5334 w,=5334
5 6 7 8 5 6 7 8
b= 2000 b= 2000 b= 2000 b,=2000 b =2666 b1=2666 b =2666 b,= 2666

wi=6000 wi=6000 w =6000 w =6000 wi= 5334 wi= 5334 wi=5334 w =5334
9 10 11 12 9 10 11 12
b=2000 b=2000 b=2000 b=2000 b 2666 b,= 2666 b-=2666 b1=2666

=
1v 6000
=
1v 6000 w =6000 w =6000 w= wi= 5=334 wv= 5334 wi= 5334
13 14 15 16 13 14 15 16
Level ofBlack Segregation(D.): 0.000 Level ofBlack Segregation(D.): 0.333

NeighborhoodPovertyforAve. Black: 0.125 NeighborhoodPovertyforAve. Black: 0.133
NeighborhoodPovertyforAve. White: 0.125 NeighborhoodPovertyforAve. White: 0.122
CITY 3: HIGH RACIAL SEGREGATION CITY 4: COMPLETE RACIAL SEGREGATION
b1=0 b1=0 b1=0 b1=0 b1=0 b1=0 b1=0 b1=0

w,=8000 w,=8000 w,=800 w==8000 w =8000 wi= 8000 w =8000 w= 8000
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
b1=0 b1=0 b1=0 b1=0 b1=0 b1=0 b1=0 b1=0

w,=8000 w~=8000 w1=8000 w,=8000 w1=8000 w1=8000 w1=8000 w1=8000
5 6 7 8 ~~~~5 6 7 8
b,=4000 b1=4000 b1=4000 b1=4000 b1=0 b1=0 b1=0 b1=0

w=4000 wi= 4000 wi= 4000 wi=4000 w =8000 w =8000 w =8000 wi= 8000
9 10 11 12 9 10 11 12
b,=4000 b,=4000 b,=4000 b,=4000 b1=8000 b1=8000 b,= 8000 b,= 8000
w1=4000 w1=4000 wi=4000 wi=4000 Iwv=O w= wl=O w1=0
13 14 1 ' 16 13 14 15 16
Level ofBlack Segregation(D.): 0.667 Level ofBlack Segregation(D.): 1.000

NeighborhoodPovertyforAve. Black: 0.150 NeighborhoodPovertyforAve. Black: 0.200
NeighborhoodPovertyforAve. White: 0.117 NeighborhoodPovertyforAve. White: 0.100
FIG. 1.-Effect of povertysegregationon povertyconcentration in threehy-

32,000 blacks, and 96,000 whites
potheticalcitiescontaining16 neighborhoods,
withrespectivepovertyratesof 20% and 10%.
zero, throughlow and high levels, to completeseparationbetweenthe

races.
City1 illustratesthecase ofno segregation,wheretworacialgroupsare
evenly distributedthroughout the cityand each neighborhood has exactly
6,000 whites(wi) and 2,000 blacks (bi). In thiscase, all neighborhoods
replicatetheracial compositionofthecityas a whole,so each blacklives
332
AmericanApartheid
in an area thatis 25% black and 75% white.Blacks and whitesexperi-

ence the same neighborhoodpovertyrate, .125, which is a weighted
averageof theoverallblack and whiterates.Withno residentialsegrega-
tion,therefore, bothraces experiencethesame geographicconcentration
of poverty.
City 2 illustrateswhat happens to the level of povertyconcentration
whenblacks are excludedfromsomeneighborhoods. In thishypothetical
city,blacks are barredfromthefournorthernmost neighborhoods, which
are set offfromthe restof the cityby a double line runningfromeast to
west. In this and the remainingexamples,neighborhoodsthat exclude
blacks are called "whiteareas" and thosethataccept blacks are labeled
"black areas," even thoughthelattermaycontainsomewhiteresidents.I
assume thatracial groupsare evenlydistributed in theirrespectiveareas,
so thateach ofthecity'swhiteareas contains8,000 whitesand no blacks,
and each of its black areas contains2,666 blacks and 5,334 whites.
The mostcommonmeasureofracial segregation is theindexofdissimi-
larity(D), which statesthe proportionof minority memberswho would
have to moveto achievean even settlement pattern(as in City1). Barring
blacks fromfourneighborhoods(City 2) yieldsa dissimilarity index of
.333. The impositionofeven thislow levelofsegregation createsa dispar-
ityin the average level of neighborhoodpovertyexperiencedby blacks
and whites. Each black area is composed of one-thirdblacks (2,666/
8,000) and two-thirdswhites(5,334/8,000),givinga totalneighborhood
povertyrate of (.333 x .20) + (.667 x .10) = .133 forblack neighbor-
hoods. But whereasall blacks experiencethishigherpovertyrate(com-
pared with .125 in an integratedcity),onlytwo-thirds of whitesdo so.
The one-third ofwhites(32,000)who livein all-whiteareas experiencethe
whitepovertyrateof .100, yieldingan averageneighborhood povertyrate
forwhitesof (.333 x .10) + (.667 x .133) = .122 (see fig.1, City2).
When racial segregationis imposed,therefore, some whitesare better
off,whereasall blacks are worseoff.One-thirdof thewhitesare able to
isolate themselvesfromthe higherrates of black povertyand insulate
themselvesfromthe social problemsassociatedwithincomedeprivation
(e.g., crime,low housingvalues, unstablefamilies,delinquency,drug
use, etc.). Throughracial segregation,the average residentialenviron-
mentof whitesimprovesand theaverageenvironment ofblacks deterio-
rates.
Cites3 and 4 imposesuccessivelyhigherlevelsofsegregation byreduc-
ing the numberof black areas to eight(yieldinga D of .667) and four
(givinga D of 1.0), respectively.As segregationincreases,the level of
povertyconcentrationamong blacks steadilyrises while that among
whitessteadilyfalls.In City3, theneighborhood povertyrateforblacks
reaches. 150 (each black neighborhood is halfblack and halfwhite,yield-
333
ing a weightedaverage splitbetweenthe black and whiteratesof .100

and .200). Meanwhile,the average povertyratein whiteneighborhoods
falls to .117 because two-thirdsof the whites(64,000 people) are now
insulatedfromthe higherratesof black poverty.When the dissimilarity
indexreaches 1.0 (City4), all whitesexperiencethewhitepovertyrateof
.100 and all blacks experiencethe black povertyrate of .200, and their
respectivepovertyconcentrations reach theirmaximumdivergence.
This result,however,assumes that thereis no segregationby social
class withinracial groups;thatis, poor blacks and whitesare assumedto
be evenlydistributedamong black and whiteneighborhoods. In reality,
however,thereare rich and poor neighborhoodsas well as black and
whiteones. Figure 2 therefore repeatsthe analysisunderthe morereal-
istic assumptionof class segregation.For each of the fourhypothetical
cities,I createa "right"and a "wrong"side of the tracksdrawinga line
runningnorth-south throughthecenteroftown.Poorpeopleare excluded
fromall neighborhoodseast of this line, and althoughsome nonpoor
people live west of the line, all poor people do so. For simplicity,in
segmentsof the city definedby race and class, I assume that blacks,
whites,poor, and nonpoorare evenlydistributed.
City1 offigure2 illustratestheeffectofaddingincomesegregation to a
raciallyintegratedresidentialenvironment.The black povertyrate of
.200 applied to the black populationof 32,000 impliesthe existenceof
6,400 poor blacks who are distributed evenlythroughout theeightneigh-
borhoodswest of the class boundary,yielding800 poor blacks per area
(pbi). Likewise, a povertyrate of .100 in a populationof 96,000 whites
implies 9,600 poor whites,giving 1,200 per neighborhoodwest of the
tracks(pwi). The total populationforeach neighborhoodis stillthatof
figure1 (2,000 blacksand 6,000 whites),meaningthereare 1,200nonpoor
blacks and 4,800 nonpoorwhitesin each poorneighborhood.On therich
side of town, of course,thereare no poor people in any neighborhood.
This configuration givesa poorversusnonpoordissimilarity indexof .625
forblacks and .555 forwhites,figureslyingtowardtheupperend of the
continuumtypicallyobserved for class segregation,but withinestab-
lishedranges(Massey and Eggers 1990).
The impositionofclass segregationdoes notchangetheaveragelevelof
neighborhoodpovertyexperiencedby blacks and whites.As is shownin
City 1 of figure2, it is .125 forbothgroups,just as in figure1. But this
overall index is deceivingbecause it representsa weightedaverage of
povertyratesexperiencedby people in poor and nonpoorneighborhoods.
On the nonpoor side of town, the neighborhoodpovertyrate is by
definition 0, whereason the poor side it is .250. Since thereis no racial
segregation,however,poor blacks and poor whitessharethisdisadvan-
tage equally; both experiencea high concentration of poverty,whereas
334
AmericanApartheid
CITY 1: NO RACIAL SEGREGATION CITY 2: LOW RACIAL SEGREGATION
pb,=800 pb,=800 pb,=0 pb,= 0 pb,=0 pb,=0 pb,=0 pb,= O

pwA=1200pwA=1200pw,=0 pw,=0 pw=1200 pw=1200 pw=0 pw,=0
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
pb=800 pb=800 pb=0 pbl=0 pb=1066 pb=1066 pb -0 pbl=0

pw= 1200 p ,1200 pw w0 pw=0 pw,=1200 pG1200 pw=0 pw=0
5 6 7 8 5 6 7 8
pb=800 pb=800 pb=0 pbl=0 pb=1066 pb=1066 pbl= 0 pbl=0

pw= 1200 pw= 1200 pw= 0 pw,=0 pw= 1200 pw= 1200 pw,=0 pw,=0
9 10 11 12 9 10 11 12
pb=800 pb=800 pbl=0 pbl=0 pb=1066 pbl 1066 pbl= 0 pbl= 0

pw=1200 pw=1200 pw,=0 pw,=0 pw=1200 pw=1200 pw,=0 pw,=0
13 14 15 16 13 14 15 16
LevelofClassSegregation
forBlacks: 0.625 forBlacks:
LevelofClassSegregation 0.625
NeighborhoodPoverty
forAve.Black: 0.125 Neighborhood forAve.Black:
Poverty 0.142
Neighborhood forAve.PoorBlack: 0.250
Poverty Neighborhood forAve.PoorBlack: 0.283
Poverty
forWhites: 0.555 forWhites:
NeighborhoodPoverty
forAve.White: 0.125 Neighborhood forAve.White:
Poverty 0.119
Neighborhood forAve.PoorWhite: 0.250
Poverty Neighborhood forAve.PoorWhite: 0.250
Poverty
CITY 3: HIGH RACIAL SEGREGATION CITY 4: COMPLETE RACIAL SEGREGATION
pbl 0 pb =0 pb=0 pb=0 pbl= 0 pb=0 pb=0 pb= 0

pw, 1200 pw= 1200 pw=0 pw=0 pw,=1600 pw=1600 pw=0 pw=0
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
pb=0 pb=0 pb=0 pbl= 0 pb=0 pb=0 pb=0 pbl= 0

pw= 1200 pwG1200 pw,=O pw,=O pw= 1600 pw=1600 pw=0 pw,=0
5 6 7 8 5 6 7 8
pb=1600 pb=1600 pb=0 pbl= 0 pb=0 pb=0 pbl 0 pbl= 0

pw=1200 pw=1200 pw= 0 pw,=0 pw=1600 pw=1600 pw,=0 pw,=0
9 10 11 12 9 10 11 12
pb=1600 pb=1600 pbl= 0 pbl= 0 pbl= 3200 pbl= 3200 pbl= 0 pbl= 0
pw=1200 pw=1200 pw,=0 pw,=0 pw,=0 pw,=0 pw,=0 pw,=0
13 14 15 16 13 14 15 16
forBlacks: 0.625 forBlacks:
Neighborhood forAve.Black:
Poverty 0.175 Neighborhood forAve.Black:
Poverty 0.200
Neighborhood forAve.PoorBlack: 0.350
Poverty Neighborhood forAve.PoorBlack: 0.400
Poverty
forWhites: 0.555 forWhites:
Neighborhood forAve.White:
Poverty 0.108 Neighborhood forAve.White:
Poverty 0.100
Neighborhood forAve.PoorWhite:0.250
Poverty Neighborhood forAve.PoorWhite: 0.200
Poverty
in threehypothetical
FIG. 2.-Effect of segregationon povertyconcentration
cities,assumingclass segregationwithinracial groups.
wealthierblacks and whiteson the nonpoorside of townexperienceno

povertyat all. Since halfof each grouplives in poor neighborhoods and
half lives in nonpoorneighborhoods,the overall neighborhoodpoverty
rate is .125 forboth races.
Cities2-4 (fig.2) illustratetheeffectofincreasingracialsegregation in
a citydivided along class lines. The segmentationof the cityby class as
335
well as race createsfourtypesof neighborhoods: poor black areas, poor

white areas, "rich" (nonpoor)black areas, and "rich" (nonpoor)white
areas. Neighborhoods1 and 2 representpoor whiteneighborhoods; they
are composed of 1,200 poor whites and 6,800 nonpoorwhites,for a
povertyrate of .150. Neighborhoods3 and 4 are richwhiteareas with
povertyratesof 0. Neighborhoods5-6, 9-10, and 13-14 (to thewestof
the class line) are poor black neighborhoods thatcontainall poor blacks
and mostpoor whites.The 6,400 poor blacks are spreadevenlythrough-
out the six neighborhoods,yielding1,066 personsper area, and when
added to the 1,200poorwhites,theygivea totalpovertyrateof .283, that
is, (1,066 + 1,200)/8,000.In richblack areas, as in richwhiteareas, the
povertyrate is 0.
The impositionof racial segregationon a residentialstructurethatis
also segregatedby class worksto thedetriment of poorblacksand to the
benefitof poor whites.Whereasall poorblacks are confinedto neighbor-
hoodswitha highpovertyrateof .283, somepoorwhites(inthiscase one-
quarter of them) live in raciallyhomogeneousneighborhoodsthat are
insulatedfromthe greaterprevalenceof povertyamongblacks, so their
povertyrateis only. 150 (see neighborhoods 1 and 2 in City2, fig.2). This
lower rate of povertyis exactlybalanced by the higherrate of poverty
experiencedby whiteslivingin poor black neighborhoods, however,so
the totalneighborhoodpovertyrateexperiencedby poor whitesremains
unchangedat .250, thatis, (.25 x .150) + (.75 x .283) = .250.
The povertyrate that all whites(not just poor ones) experienceis a
weightedaverageofthepovertyratesprevailingin thefourneighborhood
types.In City2,16.7% of whiteslive in richwhiteneighborhoods witha
povertyrate of 0, 16.7% live in poor whiteareas witha povertyrate of
.150, one-thirdlive in poor black neighborhoods witha povertyrate of
.283, and one-third live in richblack areas withno poorat all, yieldingan
overallrateof .119 (see fig.2). The calculationforblacksis simpler:half
live in richblack neighborhoods wherethepovertyrateis 0 and halflive
in poor black neighborhoods wheretherateis .283, givingan overallrate
of .142. As before,throughtheimpositionofracialsegregation, theaver-
age povertyrateexperiencedby blacks movesup whilethatexperienced
by whitesgoes down.
Similarcomputationsperformed on Cities3 and 4 showthatthesize of
the black-whitedisparityincreasesas racial segregationrises. With a
racial dissimilarityindex of .667 (City 3, fig. 2), blacks experiencean
averageneighborhood povertyrateof . 175 comparedwitha figureof. 108
forwhites;and poor blacks experiencea neighborhoodpovertyrate of
.350 relativeto .250 forpoor whites.The latterfigures,moreover,ob-
scure the fact that now half of all poor whiteslive in an area with a
povertyrateof . 150, whereasall poor blackslive in a neighborhood with
336
AmericanApartheid
a povertyrate of .350. With completeracial segregation,of course,the

contrastbetweenblacks and whitesreachesits maximum.In thiscase,
theaverage povertyrateexperiencedby all whitestakentogetheris .100
and that by poor whitesis .200, whereas poor blacks are confinedto
neighborhoods witha povertyrateof .400, and blacksas a wholeexperi-
ence a povertyrate of .200.
ECONOMIC DISLOCATION IN A SEGREGATED ENVIRONMENT

If racial segregationconcentratespovertyin space, it also focusesand
exacerbatesany changein the economicstatusof minority groups.In a
segregatedenvironment,any exogenouseconomicshock that causes a
downwardshiftin thedistribution ofminority income(e.g., theclosingof
factories,the mechanizationof production,the suburbanizationof em-
ployment)will notonlybringabout an increasein thepovertyrateforthe
groupas a whole; it will also cause an increasein thegeographicconcen-
trationof poverty.This geographicintensification of povertyoccursbe-
cause the additionalpovertycreatedby the exogenousshock is spread
unevenlyover the metropolitanarea. In a raciallysegregatedcity,any
increasein povertyis confinedto a small numberof minority neighbor-
hoods; the greaterthe segregation,the smallerthe numberof neighbor-
hoods absorbingthe shock,and themoreseveretheresultingconcentra-
tionof poverty.If class segregationis also imposed,thenthe additional
povertyis not only restrictedto minorityneighborhoods,it is confined
primarilyto poor minorityneighborhoods.
In short, when shiftsin the distributionof minorityincome occur
withina raciallysegregatedenvironment, theyhave the powerto trans-
form,veryrapidlyand dramatically,thesocioeconomicenvironment ex-
periencedby poor minorityfamilies.In thissection,I demonstrate how
racial segregationunderminestheeconomicbase ofminority communities
duringperiodsof economicdislocation.I use thehypothetical data from
figures1 and 2 to documentthe effectof a 50% increasein the rate of
black povertyfrom.200 to .300, withthewhiterateheld constant.This
patternof changein thedistribution ofwhiteand black incomesparallels
quite closelywhat happenedin manyU.S. urbanareas duringthe 1970s.
In Chicago, for example, the proportionof black familiesin poverty
increasedfrom.200 in 1970 to .283 in 1980,whiletheproportion ofpoor
whitefamiliesremainedconstantat about .060; in New York, the pov-
ertyrate amongwhitefamilieswas stableat about .100, whiletheblack
ratewentfrom.214 to .296, and theHispanicrategrewfrom.317 to .370
(Massey and Eggers 1990).
The analysisis summarizedin table 1, whichshowstheconcentration
of povertyin black and white neighborhoodsbeforeand afterthe as-
337
v~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i
O. 1-
i n #) st
n
S
m~~~~~~C
oC Nt 0 No 0
?
C N e m
~~~~~~~o
1
N
14 ? ?q ?q
zz
e4. .E& xk2iS
44~~3
oO
8 l) oUl) in O 0
. . . . . . . . . . .
O O) O O Oo C Ul) _
in) 00 in 0 in n In o
ll 11
. i. .l . . . .
0 0 C)
0~~~~~~ .2 0
0~~ o
b . . . o b.D . . .
.) $ b . l . s.. to .d .
. a a. . .L >
::: ...4. .. :. 0 En*:
*m4
Cd aQ=S t
cd8:QWB= EMEX
tz ? 3 3 g o; 8 *3 3 3 3 E : > : S
bo 40~~33
sumedincomeshift,undervaryingconditionsofclass and racialsegrega-

tion. (Data on the hypotheticalcities fromwhich the table was con-
structedwill be senton request.)The threeleft-handcolumnsshow how
thedownwardshiftin black incomesaffectsthedegreeofpovertyconcen-
trationwhen thereis no class segregation;the threeright-hand columns
indicatethe effectof the shiftin incomeswhen class segregationis also
imposed.
First considerthe case of no class segregation.If blacks were com-
pletelyintegrated,a sharprisein theirpovertyratewould be harmfulto
the well-beingof thegroupas a whole,but it would notgreatlyalterthe
neighborhoodenvironment in whichtheylive. The averagerateof pov-
ertyto which blacks are exposed would increasefrom.125 to .150, an
absoluteincrementof .025 and a relativeincreaseof 20%. It is doubtful
whetheran increaseofthismagnitudewouldbe particularly noticeableto
people livingin the neighborhood;since blacks and whitesoccupythe
same neighborhoods,thisrelativelysmall incrementin povertyconcen-
trationwould be experiencedequally by bothgroups.
As racial segregationrises,however,the downwardshiftin thedistri-
butionof black incomesis confinedincreasingly to black neighborhoods,
and thechangein theneighborhood environment becomesmoredramatic
forblacks and less noticeableforwhites.Witha low level of segregation
(D = .333), thelevel of black povertyconcentration increasesfrom.133
to .167 as a resultof the incomeshift(an incrementof .024, or 26%),
whereastheextentof povertyconcentration forwhitesgoes from.122 to
.144 (an increment ofonly.022, or 18%). Underconditionsofhighsegre-
gation (D = .667), the disparitybetweenblacks and whiteswidens-
black povertyconcentrationgrows by 33%, as a resultof the income
shift,to reach .200; whereas whitepovertyconcentration increasesby
only14% to reach .133. Whenthetwo groupsare completely segregated,
of course,all of theincreasein black povertyis absorbedby black neigh-
borhoods,so thattheirpovertyconcentration increasesby 50% to .300,
whereaswhitepovertyconcentration remainsconstantat .100, one-third
of the black level.
Thus, withcompleteracial segregation(and recallthatChicago had a
black-whitedissimilarity index of .906 in 1980), the degreeof poverty
concentration amongblacks can reachtrulyalarmingproportions follow-
ing a sharp downwardshiftin the distribution of black income,as was
observed in many cities duringthe 1970s. This transformation in the
socioeconomicenvironment ofblacksoccursentirely throughtheinterac-
tionofthedistributional structure ofincomewiththeresidential structure
of segregationand not as a resultof richblacks fleeingthe ghetto.
The threeright-hand columnsoftable 1 buildclass segregation intothe
analysisby distinguishing betweenpoor and nonpoorneighborhoods, as
340
AmericanApartheid
in figure2. In a citysegregatedby class as well as race, any increasein

black povertyis absorbed, not simplyby black neighborhoods, but by
poor black neighborhoods, so the level of class segregation among blacks
increasesfrom.625 beforetheincomeshiftto .714 afterward(see thelast
threerows in the table). This increasestemsnot fromout-migration by
rich blacks but fromthe furtherimpoverishment of already-poorblack
neighborhoods.Racial segregationconcentratesany additionalpoverty
createdby an economicdownturnand heaps it on already-disadvantaged
minority neighborhoods, causingclass segregationto rise.
In essence,the impositionof class as well as racial segregation takesa
bad situationand makes it worse. Considerthe resultsforcitiesthatare
segregatedby class (thethreeright-hand columnsin table 1). Beforethe
incomeshift,povertyratesin theaveragepoorblack neighborhood range
from.250 in a city with no segregationto .400 in one with complete
segregation.Afterthe shift,the economicsituationin poor black neigh-
borhoodsdeteriorates appreciablyat all segregation levels,butthedeteri-
orationis trulydisastrousat high levels of racial segregation.With a
dissimilarity index of .667, the neighborhoodof the average poor black
residentgoes from35% poorto 45% poor,a relativeincreaseof29%; with
complete segregation,the neighborhoodpovertyrate of poor blacks
climbsfrom40% to 60%.
Thus, underconditionsofcompleteracialsegregation, a 50% risein the
black povertyrate translatesdirectlyintoa 50% increasein the concen-
trationof povertyin poor black neighborhoods.In a segregatedcity,a
downwardincomeshiftin black incomescauses poorblacksto live in an
environmentwhere the vast majorityof neighborsare also poor. The
same incomechange,would, in the absence of segregation,yieldonlya
20% increase in povertyconcentrationamong poor blacks and would
leave themin neighborhoodswherethe vast majorityof people are not
poor.
As segregationrises,the disparitybetweentheneighborhood environ-
mentsof poor whitesand poor blacks widensmarkedly.Withno racial
segregation,of course,poor whitesand poor blacks experiencethe geo-
graphicconsequencesoffallingblack incomesequally.Bothgroupsexpe-
rience a 20% increase in neighborhoodpovertyand end up living in
neighborhoods wherethreeout ofevery10 personsare poor. As segrega-
tionrises,however,poor whitesare increasingly insulatedfromthecon-
sequencesoffallingblack incomes.As one movesfromcompleteintegra-
tionto completesegregationunderconditionsof highblack poverty,the
povertyrate in poor whiteneighborhoods falls from.300 to .200, while
that in poor black neighborhoodsrises from.300 to .600 (see the right-
hand columnlabeled "AfterBlack Income Shift"in the bottomhalf of
table 1). In short,the net effectof racial segregationis to exposewhites
341
and blacks to vastlydifferent

socioeconomicenvironments
and to leave
the economicbase of the black communityextremelyvulnerableto any
downturnin its economicfortunes.
SEGREGATION AND THE CREATION OF THE UNDERCLASS

I have shownhow racial segregationacts to concentrate povertyin space
and to focus any increasein povertyon a small numberof poor, geo-
graphicallyisolated minorityneighborhoods.Povertyis not a neutral
variable,ofcourse,and withhighratesofpovertycomea varietyofother
social and economicconditions:reducedbuyingpower,increasedwelfare
dependence,highratesof familydisruption,elevatedcrimerates,hous-
ing deterioration, elevated infantmortalityrates,and decreasededuca-
tional quality. These outcomes,moreover,do not occurin isolationbut
representa set of mutuallyreinforcing conditions.Thus, theincreasein
povertyconcentration thatfollowsautomaticallywhentheminority pov-
ertyrate rises in a segregatedcitybringsabout a constellationof other
changes in the social and economiccompositionof neighborhoods that
have profoundimplicationsforthe well-beingof thosewho live there.
In this section,I explorethe natureof theseancillarysocial and eco-
nomic changes and discuss their self-reinforcing effectin producing
underclasscommunities.I accomplishthistaskby usingregression equa-
tionsto predictspecificaspectsof a neighborhood's social and economic
environment fromits povertyrate. Two data sets wereused to estimate
the predictionequations. One was a fileof approximately 21,000 census
tractslocatedin 60 SMSAs. It includedinformation on themedianhouse-
hold income,the public assistancerate, and the rate of female-headed
familiesin each tract(see Masseyand Denton1987).These variableswere
regressedon the tractpovertyrate and the proportionwhiteto yieldthe
threeequationsshown at the top of the Appendix.The secondfilecon-
sistedof 333 tracts,located in Philadelphia,thatcontainedinformation
on tractcrimerates,death rates,housingdeterioration, and schoolqual-
ity(Massey, Condran,and Denton 1987). These variableswerelikewise
regressedon the povertyrate and the proportionwhiteto producethe
equationsshownin the lowerportionof the Appendix.
The equations were used to predictthe socioeconomicenvironment
typicalof poor minority neighborhoods beforeand afteran assumedrise
in the black povertyrate under varyingconditionsof racial and class
segregation.Increasingthepovertyrateundervaryingconditionsofclass
and racial segregationleads to different povertyconcentrations (see my
discussionabove ofthehypothetical cities).These povertyconcentrations
wereemployedto predictneighborhoodsocioeconomicconditionsby us-
ing the empiricallyestimatedequations. Table 2, forexample,predicts
342
t
t~~~~~~~~~~~~o I i
S~~~~~~~~t:
o ff
C4Y l
M N 8 Xs?XooN W
0 ) -cu: r settoo {)tmv
X~~~~~~~~U o r- 4O oo
m 4 o6 -Xe 14
-
S~~~~~~~~4
O O oee _NNe .
m H~~~0
m ?
00 N O~~~(
H
; I __
j
Pz~~~~~~~~9
X 9
u eq cl m
, cn
3~
b0 CAt
cn it 00 C. 0 o C
cn 8st
SZ;~~~~~~~~~~~0
z;
~c c
C,; C,
Y _1m 6,_ _.. *
Cs__N,;
? O m v II N e t N _ _ _ N _ _ _ N Q ~~0o
OP o o
ot80'
O PSq = cd
Z Z
$O. . *| w''~~~~~~~~~~~~~1,
, 1 , C4
, in 4
o Q eA g = X 3 i = m S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
e
0
CNO?,Og
in 00 g ;>= b = t
Z13|=- :sSs ,
En .,
thepercentageoffamilieson publicassistance,thepercentageoffamilies
with female heads, and the median familyincome by takingpoverty
concentrations calculatedunderdifferent assumptionsofracial and class
segregation(fromtable 1) and insertingtheminto the predictionequa-
tions,along with the percentageof whitesin black neighborhoods (in-
cluded as a control).
A simpleexampleillustrateshow thisand all subsequenttables were
created. The firsttwo columnsin the firstline of table 2 containthe
medianhouseholdincomespredictedforpoorblackneighborhoods before
and afterthe incomeshift,assumingno racial or class segregation.The
table shows thatpoor blacks can expectto live in a neighborhoodwitha
medianirncome of $18,826 beforetheshiftand $17,488afterward.These
figureswere generatedby takingneighborhoodpovertyrates fromthe
firsttwo left-handcolumnsof thefirstrow of table 1 (12.5% and 15.0%)
and insertingthem into the equation that predictsmedian household
income(thefirstrow ofAppendixtableAl), togetherwiththepercentage
of whitesin each neighborhood(75%-see City 1, fig. 1). The equation
thuspredictsa loggedmedianneighborhoodincomeof 9.843 (= 10.187
+ 0.00033 x 75 - 0.0295 x 12.5), whose antilogis 18,826; afterthe
shiftit predictsa value of 9.769 (= 10.187 + 0.00033 X 75 - 0.0295 X
15), whose antilogis 17,488.
A majorconsequenceofanydownwardshiftin thedistributional struc-
ture of black income is a reductionof buyingpower in neighborhoods
where poor blacks live. In orderto simplifyexposition,I comparethe
situationof poor black neighborhoods createdunderfourpolar assump-
tions:no segregationby race or class, class segregationalone, complete
racial segregationwith no class segregation,and both class and racial
segregation.In the firstcircumstance,a rise in the black povertyrate
from20% to 30% is associatedwitha significant drop in medianneigh-
borhoodincomefrom$18,826 to $17,488, a declineof $1,338 or 7.1%.
This change impliesa substantialloss of demand in all neighborhoods
containingblacks.
If we assume that the median householdincomeis the same as the
mean (a conservativeassumptionforour purposes)and note thateach
neighborhoodcontainsabout 2,963 households(theneighborhood popu-
lation of 8,000 divided by the average U.S. householdsize, 2.7), then
each neighborhoodis expectedto lose about $3.96 millionin potential
demandas a resultoftheincomeshift(2,963 X 1,338 = 3.96 million).In
the absence of racial or class segregation,however,thisloss of buying
power is spread evenlythroughoutthe city.Retail profits,tax receipts,
and servicerevenuesfallforthecityas a whole,and somebusinessesand
serviceorganizationsclose, but no particularneighborhoodsuffersdis-
344
AmericanApartheid
proportionately, and blacksand whitesdo notexperienceanydifferential

loss of access to goods or services.
Imposingclass segregationshiftsthe burdenof risingblack poverty
fromrichto poorneighborhoods; but,in theabsenceofracialsegregation,
poor whites and blacks experiencethese disruptionsequally. If class
segregationalone is assumed,the medianincomein poor neighborhoods
fallsfrom$13,020 beforetheshiftto $11,235afterward, a dropof$1,785,
implyinga loss ofdemandof$5.29 million.In poorneighborhoods, there-
fore,retailprofitsfall, services are cut back, and businesses inevitably
close; but amongpoor neighborhoods, blacks and whitesstillexperience
the losses equally, and thereis no basis forthe formationof a racially
distinctiveunderclass.
The impositionof racial segregationchanges the situationentirely.
Underconditionsof completeracial segregationbut no class segregation,
the medianincomein black neighborhoods fallsfrom$14,721 beforethe
rise in black povertyto $10,960 afterward,a drop of $3,761, or 25.5%,
substantiallygreaterthan the drop when class segregationis imposed
alone. A dropof thismagnitudeimpliesa verydramaticloss ofpotential
demand, with some $11.1 millionin income disappearingfromblack
neighborhoods because of the shift.In theseareas, storeswill inevitably
close, serviceswill be withdrawn,and neighborhoodinvestments will
drop.
Finally,a risein the black povertyratein a citythatis segregatedby
class as well as race confinesthe loss of incomeand potentialdemand
entirelyto poor black neighborhoods.As a result,what was a difficult
situationforpoor blacks becomesan outrightdisaster.Underconditions
of both racial and class segregation,poor black neighborhoodsface a
precarioussituationbeforethe income shift,with a median household
incomeof only$8,160. Afterthe shift,themedianneighborhood income
plummetsto $4,523, representing a loss of $3,637, or 45%. Although
neighborhoodsinhabitedby poor blacks had a weak potentialdemand
beforethe shift(only$24.2 million),afterthe shiftpotentialdemandis
almosthalved to $13.4 million,fora loss of $10.8 million.
A loss of this magnitudefroman already-smallincomebase would
rapidlybringabout the failureof mostnonessentialbusinessesand the
eliminationof servicesthatdependon theabilityofclientsto pay. Racial
segregationtakes the overall loss in black income,concentratesit spa-
tially,and focusesit on fragileneighborhoods thatare the least able to
absorbit. Underconditionsofhighracialsegregation, downwardshiftsin
black incomecutan alreadyweak demandto levelsinsufficient to support
anythingmorethan the mostrudimentary goods and services.This out-
comeoccurswhetherthecityis segregatedbyclass or not,buttheimposi-
345
tion of racial segregationon a citythat is already segregatedby class

greatlyexacerbatesthe severityof the economicdeprivationexperienced
by poor blacks.
Withfallingmedianincomes,othersocialconditionscan be expectedto
follow,butin theabsenceofeitherclass or racialsegregation, a sharprise
in black povertydoes not have a particularlynoticeableeffecton the
social compositionof the neighborhoodswherepoor blacks live. In an
integratedcity, the income shiftcauses the percentageof familieson
publicassistanceto increasefrom11.5% to 13.4%, and thepercentageof
familiesheaded byfemales(female-headed families)to risefrom11.7% to
13.2%. The impositionof class segregationdoes notchangethisoutcome
much-the dependency rate increases from21.1% beforethe shiftto
24.6% afterward,and the percentage offemale-headed familiesgoesfrom
19.2% to 22.2%. More important, with class segregationalone poor
blacksand whitesexperience changesequally,so a raciallydistinctive
the
underclasscannotform.
The impositionof racial segregationhas a morepowerfuleffecton the
social environment experiencedby poor blacks. Withracial segregation
but no class segregation,the public assistancerate in black neighbor-
hoods risesfrom21.2% to 28.6%, and the percentageof female-headed
familiesincreasesfrom21.5% to 27.5%. If class segregationis also im-
posed, however,the socioeconomiccompositionof poor black neighbor-
hoods moves from a situation where self-supporting, husband-wife
familiesare in themajority,to an environment wherewelfare-dependent,
female-headedfamiliesare thenorm.Aftertheshift,thedependencyrate
in poor black areas increasesfrom36.1% to 51%, and thepercentageof
female-headedfamiliesrises from33.5% to 45.5% (see the threeright-
hand columnsfor familieson public assistanceand those with female
heads in table 2).
Risingneighborhoodpovertyratesand fallingincomeshave otheref-
fectsas well (see table3). Duringperiodsofrisingminority poverty,racial
and class segregationbuildhousingdeterioration intotheresidential
envi-
ronmentof poor blacks by concentrating theloss ofincomein poorblack
neighborhoods. As totalneighborhood incomefalls,homeownersare less
able to repair and maintaintheirproperty,landlordsare less able to
recoverthe costs of buildingmaintenancefromtheirrents,and housing
dilapidationspreads. Moreover,even homeownersand landlordswith
moneyto maintaintheirpropertieshave less incentiveto do so becauseof
the spreading deteriorationaround them. Repair is renderedmore
difficultbytheclosingofhardwarestores,lumberyards, and supplybusi-
nessesas a resultof fallingdemand in the neighborhood.
Table 3 illustratesthepotentialsize ofsegregation'seffecton thespread
of housingdeterioration by predictingthe proportionof houses thatare
346
AmericanApartheid
boarded up. With no racial or class segregation,veryfew homes are

boardedup, and theshiftin black povertyrateshardlychangesthisfact:
around2% ofhomesare boardedup beforeand aftertheincomeshift(see
thefirstsectionof table 3). As segregationrises,however,theprevalence
of boarded-up housing increases,and the effectof the shiftin black
incomes becomes more noticeable. Under a regimeof completeracial
segregationbut no class segregation,4.5% of houses are boarded up
beforethe incomeshift,and 6% are boardedup afterward.The imposi-
tionofbothracial and class segregation exacerbatesthissituationfurther,
withthe prevalenceof abandoned housingrisingfrom7.5% beforethe
incomeshiftto 10.5% afterward.
Loss of incomeand risingpovertyare also associatedwithincreasing
ratesof crimeand violence.Witha black povertyrateof30% (i.e., after
thedownwardshiftin black incomes),themajor crimeratein neighbor-
hoodsinhabitedbypoorblacksis predictedto be 50 perthousandin a city
withoutclass or racial segregation;but, as racial segregationrises,the
rate steadilyincreasesto 60 per thousand(see table 3). In citiesthatare
segregatedby class alone, the major crimerateis similarlyabout 62 per
thousand; but this rate steadilyrises as racial segregationis imposed,
reachinga highof 84 per thousandunderconditionsof maximumsegre-
gation. Thus, the impositionof racial segregationon a class-segregated
cityinevitablyproducesextremely highcrimeratesin poor black neigh-
borhoods.
The concentration of povertythatfollowsdirectlyfromracial segrega-
tion also has strongeffectson the mortality risksfaced by poor blacks.
The thirdsectionin table 3 shows how racial segregationsteadilyin-
creasesthe childhoodmortality rateamongpoor blacks. Withan overall
black povertyrateof 30%, thechildhooddeathrateis 12.5 perthousand
withno racial or class segregation,risingto a rateof 18.4 per thousand
whenracial segregationis imposed(an increaseof47% attributable to the
effectofracial segregationalone). Similarly,therateis 14.5 perthousand
when class segregationis imposed by itself,increasingto 22.5 per
thousandwhen racial segregationis added (an increaseof 55%).
These increasesin the risksof mortalityare generatedthroughboth
directand indirectmeans. Directly,the concentration of povertyraises
mortalitybecause poor people lack moneyto pay formedical services;
even whenservicesexist,peoplecannotaffordto use them.The pooralso
tendto engagemorefrequently in unhealthybehaviorssuch as smoking,
alcohol consumption,and drugabuse, and theirconcentration in certain
neighborhoods raisesmortality ratesin thoseplaces. Indirectly,
theloss of
income in poor black neighborhoodsbringsabout the withdrawalof
healthservices,theclosingofhospitals,and theelimination ofclinics;and
publiclysupportedmedical servicesthatremainin poor black neighbor-
347
S j S e zI < > < - X ?O t- 0
fi~~~~~~~~~~v
c3u$
Q v 11 e t ? O
X v)00 i
u z
Z~~~~~~ -EWX
11 NN
( _; c O
= N Z Sxs
i OO
? ~~~~~i_
X mo
te
X
4E
Nt t
cn... ..
348
14- in 0t in' t- 10 r- 4 o, o =
xn 90
ire ot-mtO?oo >3
Q o
4-0
cn zo0~~
. .2
bo
tt
Os 0,0d0O
?-tstIO O 0 5
C41 in 00- 00 C41 -M N et
O 0-O
C~~4r~~~)lf) ~ O rl 666 c-. t
e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .0m0 bewb

D?
o 0
i . . . 0 w
_? _4 _ N 1t) _ ! dM
N O
~moO u0 *0
0 'Z c b) X O D 4i Cd bO O4O. Q
4=
_ o 0 te 'Z _d _o U 0 bl ) sd
bo = 4) 0 &. bo ~ (Uwb ~E Y
*U
bo U - -.0
0- U
OW
bO W bO (U -4~~~~~~
E 0
Q-*-
3
(Utn . .
En . . Y D ?
Z >
34 9 0 v b
- t * , t
. e= 4
cd c=U 'O Q 2
Q#,.0 'm w-4 ,= ,_ ?n 'd &Q ?d 'dmt' 8:
cd w 4. .0 cd w O_$vSm &
m m = 3 ~~1
0 ! 0 _w8pJ bo ,
.J? = 6 =v s: =U = : v = .-, ,. d,
bo 3 3Xo.3 3.3 3 b(3 3? u$
.0 = = - 0
U tn
bo34
hoods are likelyto be of lower qualitythan thoseprovidedin nonpoor

whiteareas.
Finally, segregationhas a strongeffecton the quality of education
providedto studentsfrompoorblack neighborhoods. Althoughtheeffect
of school socioeconomiccompositionon qualityof educationis unclear
(see Jencksand Mayer 1989), the concentration of povertyin neighbor-
hoods inevitablyconcentratesdeprivationin schools. Moreover,since
supportforpublic schools comes primarilyfromlocal tax receipts,the
declinein incomethataccompaniesa risein povertyconcentration under-
cuts financialsupportforpublic schools servingpoor blacks. Areas of
concentrated povertyalso do notprovidea densityofincomesufficient to
supportprivateinstitutions.
The last two sectionsof table 3 illustratethe effectof segregationon
standardizedtestperformance and schooldropoutrates.Aftertheincome
shift,the percentageof highschool studentsscoringbelow the fifteenth
percentileon the CaliforniaAchievementTest rises from27% under
conditionsofno racial or class segregationto 42% withracialsegregation
alone. When class segregationis also imposed,the percentagesrange
from35% withno racial segregation to 58% withcompleteracialsegrega-
tion. Similarly,the effectof the shiftin the income distribution rises
steadilyas racial segregationincreases.Racial segregation alone accounts
forthe difference betweena neighborhoodschool wheremoststudents
score above the fifteenth percentileand one wheremostdo not. Similar
effectsof racial segregationare observedforhighschool dropoutrates,
althoughthe effectsare less pronounced.
Thus, residentialsegregation playsa veryimportant rolein creatingthe
"tangleof pathology"long identifiedwiththe ghettoand morerecently
withthe underclass(see Clark 1965; Wilson 1987). Racial segregationis
thestructuralconditionimposedon blacksthatmakesintensely deprived
communitiespossible,even likely.When racial segregation occursin the
class-segregated environment ofthetypicalAmericancity,itconcentrates
income deprivationwithin a small number of poor black areas and
generatessocial and economicconditionsof intensedisadvantage.These
conditionsare mutuallyreinforcing and cumulative,leadingdirectlyto
thecreationof underclasscommunities typifiedby highratesoffamilydis-
ruption,welfaredependence,crime,mortality, and educationalfailure.
Segregationcreates the structuralniche within which a self-perpet-
uatingcycleof minority povertyand deprivation can surviveand flourish.
SUMMARYAND CONCLUSION
Duringthe 1970s, black povertybecame morepersistentand geographi-
cally concentratedin Americancities. Many observersexplainedthese
350
AmericanApartheid
trendsby pointingto the class-specificeffectsof governmentwelfare

policies,industrialrestructuring,changingsexual mores,thebreakdown
ofthefamily,and thedepartureofthemiddleclass frominner-city neigh-
borhoods.While not denyingthe importanceof thesetrends,I contend
thatracial segregationwas thekeyfactorresponsibleforthesocial trans-
formationof theblack community and theconcentration ofpovertydur-
ing the 1970s. A perniciousinteractionbetweenrisingpovertyratesand
highlevels of segregationcreatedthe populationwe know as the urban
underclass.
Illustratingmygeneraltheoreticalargumentswitha simulatedexperi-
ment,I have shownhow racial segregationshapes,and to a largeextent
determines, thesocioeconomicenvironment experiencedbypoorminority
families.Racial segregationconcentratesdeprivationin black neighbor-
hoods by restricting the povertycreated by economicdownturnsto a
small numberof minorityneighborhoods.To the extentthat citiesare
also segregatedby class, increasesin povertyare confinedlargelyto poor
minority neighborhoods.Simulationsdemonstrate thatunderconditions
of high class and racial segregation,poor black neighborhoodsrapidly
move to highconcentrations of povertyfollowingan overallrisein black
povertyrates.
Usingempiricallyderivedequationsto predictneighborhood socioeco-
nomic outcomesfrompovertyconcentrations, I have also shown how
racial segregationacts to underminethe socioeconomicenvironment
faced by poor blacks and leaves theircommunities extremelyvulnerable
to anydownturnin theeconomy.Underconditionsofhighracialsegrega-
tion,a risein theblack povertyrateproducesa dramaticloss in potential
demandin poorblack neighborhoods, leadingto thewithdrawal,deterio-
ration,and outright eliminationofgoodsand servicesdistributed through
themarket.Moreover,to theextentthatpublicservicesare dependenton
local tax revenuesor user fees,theyalso disappearor sufferdeclinesin
quality.
Because segregationconcentrates disadvantage,shiftsin black poverty
ratescomparablewiththoseobservedduringthe 1970shave thepowerto
transform thesocioeconomiccharacterofpoor black neighborhoods very
rapidlyand dramatically,changinga low-incomeblack community from
a place wherewelfare-dependent, female-headedfamiliesare a minority
to one wheretheyare thenorm,producinghighratesof crime,property
abandonment,mortality, and educationalfailure.All ofthesedeleterious
conditionsoccurthroughthejoint effectofrisingpovertyand highlevels
ofracial segregation.They can be producedat anytimethrougha simple
increasein black povertyratesunderconditionsprevailingin mostlarge
U.S. cities.They can be generatedforanyfixedlevelofclass segregation,
and theydo notrequiretheout-migration ofmiddle-classblacksfromthe
351
ghetto. Thus, racial segregationis crucial to understandingand ex-

plainingthe existenceof America'surban underclass.
The way that segregationconcentratespovertyand createsdisadvan-
taged minority neighborhoods providesa succinct,comprehensive expla-
nation that resolves several issues in the underclassdebate. First, it
explains why the urban underclass, however one definesit, is so
disproportionatelycomposedofblacksand PuertoRicans (see Reischauer
1987; Rickettsand Sawhill 1988). In the nation'slargesturban areas,
thesegroupsare theonlyones thathave simultaneously experiencedhigh
levels of residentialsegregationand sharp increasesin poverty.Black-
white dissimilarityindices generallyexceed .700; in the largesturban
areas, theyare usuallyabove .800. Likewise,PuertoRicans are theonly
Hispanic groupwhose segregationindicesare routinelyabove .700 (see
Massey and Denton 1989).Duringthe 1970s,otherminority groups,such
as Mexicans and Asians, experiencedlowerlevelsofsegregation, smaller
increasesin poverty,or both.
Segregation'srolein concentrating povertyalso explainswhytheurban
underclass is confinedprimarilyto the Northeastand Midwest, and
mostlyto a smallnumberoflargemetropolitan areas, suchas New York,
Chicago, Philadelphia,and Baltimore(see Bane and Jargowsky1988).
Duringthe 1970s,olderindustrialcitiesin theseregionsnotonlyexperi-
encedthesharpesteconomicreversalsbutalso exhibitedthehighestlevels
of racial segregationin the United States (see Levy 1987; Massey and
Denton 1987; Massey and Eggers 1990). Thus, industrialrestructuring
droveminority povertyratesupwardmostsharplyin citieswhereblacks
and Hispanics were mostsegregated.
Explainingthe originsof the underclassin termsof continuingracial
segregationis also consistentwith earlierresearchshowingthatupper-
incomeblacksremainhighlysegregatedfromwhites,thatthispatternhas
not changed over time,and that the degreeof class segregationamong
blacks is actuallylowerthan thatamongotherminority groups(Massey
and Denton 1987; Denton and Massey 1989a; Massey and Eggers 1990).
Segregation,therefore, providesa morecogentand plausibleexplanation
fortheconcentration of black povertythantheout-migration ofthemid-
dle class fromthe ghetto.The latterhypothesisdoes not explain why
blacks are overrepresented in theunderclassor whygeographicalmobil-
ityshouldconcentratepovertyamongblacksbutnotothergroups.In the
United States, spatial mobilityhas always accompaniedsocial mobility,
and middle-classfamilieshave always moved out of racial and ethnic
enclaves into residentially integratedneighborhoods(see Massey 1985).
Middle-class blacks are not unique in seekingto put distancebetween
themselvesand thepoor;rather,theystandout becausetheyare less able
to do so than the middleclass of othergroups.
352
AmericanApartheid
The role that segregationplays in the creationof the underclassalso

explains the recent empirical findingsof other researchers.LaVeist
(1989a, 1989b),forexample,has shownthatthelevel ofblack residential
segregationis the strongestpredictorof black infantmortality ratesand
that, whereas racial segregationsharply increases mortalityamong
blacks,it strongly reducesit amongwhites.My simulationsshow clearly
how whitesgain and blackslose throughtheimpositionofracialsegrega-
tion.By confining blacksto a smallnumberofsegregatedneighborhoods,
whitesinsulatethemselvesfromthehigherratesofblack povertyand the
problemsassociatedwithit; and as segregationrises,thetotalincomeof
whiteneighborhoodsgrowswhile that of black neighborhoods falls,so
thatwhitesare in a betterpositionto supporthospitals,clinics,and other
medicalfacilities.
Anotherset ofempiricalresultshas recentlybeen generatedby Galster
and Keeney(1988), usinga simultaneousequationsmodelof segregation
in 40 U.S. metropolitanareas. They uncovereda verysignificant and
dynamicfeedbackrelationship betweensegregation, blacksocioeconomic
status,and discrimination, wherebyrisingsegregationincreasedblack-
whiteoccupationaldifferences, whichin turnincreasedthelevelofblack-
whitesegregationthrougha negativerelationship withblack income.At
the same time,fallingblack socioeconomicstatusraisedthelevel of dis-
crimination in thehousingmarket,which,in turn,increasedsegregation,
further reducingblack incomesand occupationalstatus,leadingto addi-
tionaldiscrimination and segregation,and so on.
This sortofdynamicrelationshipis interpretable in termsofthemodel
of segregationand povertyconcentrationI have developed. Whites
benefitfromsegregationbecause it isolateshigherratesof black poverty
withinblack neighborhoods.These higherconcentrations of black pov-
ertythenreinforce the connection,in whites'minds,betweenblack race
and behaviorsassociatedwithpoverty,such as crime,familydisruption,
and dependency.Segregationheightensand reinforcesnegativeracial
stereotypes by concentrating people who fitthosestereotypes in a small
numberofhighlyvisibleminority neighborhoods-a structural versionof
"blamingthevictim"(Ryan 1972)-therebyhardeningprejudice,making
discrimination morelikely,and maintainingthe motivationforsegrega-
tion.The persistenceofsegregation, in turn,worsenstheconcentration of
poverty,puttingadditionaldownwardpressureon black socioeconomic
status,makingfurther segregationand discriminationmorelikely,and so
on. In short,the feedbackloop identified by Galsterand Keeney(1988)
could verywell operatethrougha close connectionbetweenracial segre-
gationand black povertyconcentration.
Finally,an appreciationoftherolethatsegregation playsin generating
and perpetuating theunderclasspointsto theneed fora verydifferent set
353
of policiestowardpovertyand the underclass.In recentyears,a variety

ofinitiativeshave been proposedor enactedto addressclass-basedprob-
lemswithintheblack community, suchas joblessness,familydisruption,
drugabuse, low levelsofeducation,alcoholism,and crime.These serious
social problemsclearlymust be addressed,but I argue that,unlessthe
issue of race is simultaneouslyaddressed,these class-relatedproblems
cannotbe solved.
The issue forpublicpolicyis notwhetherraceor class is responsiblefor
the currentplightof blacks in the UnitedStates,but how race and class
interactto underminethewell-beingof thisgroup.Arguments about the
decliningsignificance ofrace (Wilson1978, 1987),debateson theeffectof
governmentwelfarepolicies (Murray1984; Jencks1985), and disputes
about trendsin the concentration of poverty(Reischauer1987; Ricketts
and Sawhill 1988; Bane and Jargowsky1988) have largelyignoredthe
continuingrealityofsegregationimposedon blacksbecauseoftheirrace.
Race affectsthe social and economicwell-beingof blacks primarily
throughthe housingmarket.Two decades afterthe passage of the Fair
HousingAct, levelsofblack segregation remainexceedingly highin large
urban areas where the concentrationof povertyis more severe (New
York, Chicago, Philadelphia,Newark, and Detroit,accordingto Bane
and Jargowsky).This highlevelofblack segregation cannotbe explained
by blacks' objective socioeconomiccharacteristics (Massey and Denton
1987; Denton and Massey 1989a),theirhousingpreferences (Farleyet al.
1978; Schuman, Steeh, and Bobo 1985), or theirlimitedknowledgeof
white housing markets(Farley 1979; Farley, Bianchi, and Colasanto
1979). Rather,it is linkedempirically to thepersistence
ofdiscrimination
in housing markets(Galster 1986, 1987a, 1987b; Galster and Keeney
1988)and to continuingantiblackprejudice(Farleyet al. 1978;Schuman
and Bobo 1988). Ironically,PuertoRicans are the exceptionthatproves
the rule, since the high degreeof segregationtheyexperienceis clearly
attributableto the persistenceof a black racial identityamong them
(Massey and Bitterman1985; Denton and Massey 1989b).
In short,my explicationof segregation'srole in concentrating urban
povertyand creatingthe underclassstronglysuggeststhat class-based
policieswill not succeed by themselves.As long as racial discrimination
and prejudice are translatedso directlyinto economic disadvantage
throughhousingmarkets,and as long as racial segregationpersistsat
such highlevelsin Americancities,blacksand PuertoRicanswillremain
vulnerablegroups whose basis for communitylife and socioeconomic
well-beingcan be systematically underminedbytheclosingofa factory or
theonsetofa recession.This vulnerability stemsfromthefactthatsegre-
gationintensifies and magnifiesanyeconomicsetbackthesegroupssuffer
354
AmericanApartheid
intotheirsocial and economicenvi-

and builds deprivationstructurally
ronments.
APPENDIX
TABLE Al
REGRESSION EQUATIONS USED TO PREDICT NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENTAL
CHARACTERISTICS IN HYPOTHETICAL CITIES
INDEPENDENT
VARIABLES
PREDICTED Percentage Poverty

OUTCOMEVARIABLE White Rate Intercept R2
Equations estimatedacross
20,854 tractsin 60 SMSAs:
Median householdincome(logged):
Coefficient. .00033* -.03* 10.19* .75*
SE .(.00006) (.0002) (.006)
Percentagefamilieson assistance:
Coefficient.- .05* .75* 6.26* .79*
SE .......... (.002) (.004) (.16)
Percentagefemale-headedfamilies:
Coefficient.- .07* .60* 9.58* .75*
SE .(.002) (.004) (.16)
Equations estimatedacross
333 tractsin Philadelphia:
Percentagehouses boarded up:
Coefficient.- .02* .15* 1.58* .47*
SE .(.006) (.02) (.59)
Major crimerate:
Coefficient..02 .79* 36.55* .06*
SE .(.08) (.02) (8.47)
Childhooddeath rate:
Coefficient.- .05 .14* 14.37* .06*
SE .(.03) (.07) (2.74)
Percentagehighschool students
below fifteenthpercentileon CAT:
Coefficient.- .09* .53* 25.78* .61*
SE ...... (.02) (.04) (1.65)
High school dropoutrate:
Coefficient..01 .20* 6.49* .34*
SE .(.007) (.02) (.74)
* P < .05.
355
REFERENCES
Auletta, Ken. 1982. The Underclass. New York: Vintage.
Bane, Mary Jo, and D. Ellwood. 1986. "Slipping intoand out of Poverty:The Dynam-
ics of Spells." JournalofHumanResources21:1-23.
Bane, Mary Jo, and Paul A. Jargowsky.1988. "Urban PovertyAreas: Basic Questions
concerningPrevalence, Growth,and Dynamics." Paper preparedforthe Committee
on National Urban Policy, National Academy of Sciences, Washington,D.C.
Clark, Kenneth B. 1965. Dark Ghetto:Dilemmas ofSocial Power. New York: Harper
& Row.
Corcoran, Mary, GregJ. Duncan, Gerald Gurin, and Patricia Gurin. 1985. "Mythand
Reality: The Causes and Persistenceof Poverty." Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management 4:516-36.
Denton, Nancy A., and Douglas S. Massey. 1989a. "Residential Segregation of
Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians by Socioeconomic Status and Generation." Social
ScienceQuarterly 69:797-817.
. 1989b. "Racial Identityamong Caribbean Hispanics: The Effectof Double
Minority Status on Residential Segregation." American Sociological Review
54:790-808.
Farley, Reynolds. 1979. "Can Blacks Affordto Live in White Residential Areas? A
Test of the HypothesisThat Subjective Economic Variables AccountforResidential
Segregation." Paper presentedat the annual meetingsof the Population Association
of America, Philadelphia.
Farley, Reynolds, Suzanne Bianchi, and Diane Colasanto. 1979. "Barriers to the
Racial Integrationof Neighborhoods: The Detroit Case." Annals of the American
AcademyofPoliticaland Social Science441:97-113.
Farley, Reynolds, Howard Schuman, Suzanne Bianchi, Diane Colasanto, and S.
Hatchett. 1978. "Chocolate City, Vanilla Suburbs: Will the Trend toward Racially
Separate CommunitiesContinue?" Social Science Research 7:319-44.
Galster, George C. 1986. "More than Skin Deep: The Effectof Housing Discrimina-
tion on the Extent and Pattern of Racial Residential Segregation in the United
States." Pp. 119-40 in HousingDesegregation and FederalPolicy,edited by John
M. Goering. Chapel Hill: Universityof North Carolina Press.
. 1987a. "Residential Segregation and Interracial Economic Disparities: A
Simultaneous Equations Approach." JournalofUrbanEconomics21:22-44.
. 1987b. "The Ecology of Racial Discriminationin Housing: An Exploratory
Model." UrbanAffairs Quarterly23:84-107.
Galster, George C., and W. Mark Keeney. 1988. "Race, Residence, Discrimination,
and Economic Opportunity:Modeling the Nexus of Urban Racial Phenomena."
UrbanAffairs Quarterly 24:87-117.
Glasgow,Douglas G. 1981. TheBlack Underclass:Poverty,Unemployment, and the
Entrapmentof Ghetto Youth. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jencks,Christopher.1985. "How Poor Are the Poor?" New YorkReview ofBooks 32
(8): 41-49.
Jencks,Christopher,and Susan E. Mayer. 1990. "The Social Consequences of Grow-
ing Up in a Poor Neighborhood: A Review." In Concentrated Urban Poverty in
America, edited by Michael McGeary and Lawrence Lynn. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy. In press.
LaVeist, Thomas A. 1989a. "Linking Residential Segregationand InfantMortalityin
U.S. Cities." Sociologyand Social Research73:90-94.
. 1989b. "The Effectsof Racial Residential Segregationon the Black/White
InfantMortalityDifferential." Paper presentedat the annual meetingsof the Popu-
lation Association of America, Baltimore.
356
AmericanApartheid
Levy,Frank. 1987.Dollarsand Dreams:The Changing

AmericanIncomeDistribu-
tion. New York: Russell Sage.
Massey, Douglas S. 1985. "Ethnic Residential Segregation:A Theoretical Synthesis
and EmpiricalReview."Sociologyand Social Research69:315-50.
Massey, Douglas S., and Brooks Bitterman. 1985. "Explaining the Paradox of Puerto
Rican Segregation." Social Forces 64:306-31.
Massey, Douglas S., GretchenA. Condran, and Nancy A. Denton. 1987. "The Effect
of Residential Segregation on Black Social and Economic Well-Being." Social
Forces 66:29-56.
Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. 1987. "Trends in the ResidentialSegrega-
tion of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians." American Sociologial Review 52:802-25.
. 1988. "Suburbanization and Segregationin U.S. MetropolitanAreas." Ameri-
can JournalofSociology94:592-626.
. 1989. "Residential Segregation of Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans in
U.S. MetropolitanAreas." Sociology and Social Research 73:73-83.
Massey, Douglas S., and Mitchell L. Eggers. 1990. "The Ecology of Inequality:
Minorities and the Concentration of Poverty, 1970-1980." American Journal of
Sociology 95:1153-88.
McLanahan, Sara, Irwin Garfinkel,and Dorothy Watson. 1988. "Family Structure,
Poverty,and the Underclass." Pp. 102-47 in Urban Change and Poverty,edited by
Michael G. H. McGeary and Lawrence E. Lynn. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy.
Murray,Charles. 1984. LosingGround:AmericanSocial Policy,1950-1980.New
York: Basic.
Reischauer, Robert D. 1987. "The Size and Characteristicsof the Underclass." Paper
presentedat the APPAM Research Conference,Bethesda, Md.
Ricketts,Erol R., and Isabel V. Sawhill. 1988. "Definingand Measuring the Under-
class." JournalofPolicyAnalysisand Management
7:316-25.
Ryan, William. 1972. Blaming the Victim. New York: Vintage.
Schuman, Howard, and Lawrence Bobo. 1988. "Survey-basedExperimentson White
Racial Attitudes toward Residential Integration."American Journal of Sociology
94:273-99.
Schuman, Howard, Charlotte Steeh, and Lawrence Bobo. 1985. Racial Attitudes
in America: Trends and Interpretations.Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
ofRace: Blacksand Changing
Wilson,WilliamJ. 1978. The DecliningSignificance
American Institutions. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
. 1987.The TrulyDisadvantaged:TheInnerCity,theUnderclass,
and Public
Policy. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
357

American Apartheid

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

American Apartheid

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass

Author(s): Douglas S. Massey

This articlearguesthatracialsegregation is crucialto explainingthe

l This researchwas supportedby NICHD grantHD-24041,whosecontribution is

AJS Volume 96 Number2 (September1990): 329-57 329

PuertoRicans, promptingsomeobserversto posittheexistenceofa new,

ertyconcentration increaseddramaticallyduringthe 1970s,particularly

HOW SEGREGATION CONCENTRATES POVERTY

CITY 1: NO RACIAL SEGREGATION CITY 2: LOW RACIAL SEGREGATION

b =2000 b =2000 b,=2000 b =2000 b,=O b,=O b,=O b,=0

b,=2000 b= 2000 b= 2000 b= 2000 b =2666 b1=2666 b= 2666 b= 2666

b= 2000 b= 2000 b= 2000 b,=2000 b =2666 b1=2666 b =2666 b,= 2666

b=2000 b=2000 b=2000 b=2000 b 2666 b,= 2666 b-=2666 b1=2666

Level ofBlack Segregation(D.): 0.000 Level ofBlack Segregation(D.): 0.333

CITY 3: HIGH RACIAL SEGREGATION CITY 4: COMPLETE RACIAL SEGREGATION

b1=0 b1=0 b1=0 b1=0 b1=0 b1=0 b1=0 b1=0

b1=0 b1=0 b1=0 b1=0 b1=0 b1=0 b1=0 b1=0

b,=4000 b1=4000 b1=4000 b1=4000 b1=0 b1=0 b1=0 b1=0

Level ofBlack Segregation(D.): 0.667 Level ofBlack Segregation(D.): 1.000

FIG. 1.-Effect of povertysegregationon povertyconcentration in threehy-

zero, throughlow and high levels, to completeseparationbetweenthe

in an area thatis 25% black and 75% white.Blacks and whitesexperi-

ing a weightedaverage splitbetweenthe black and whiteratesof .100

CITY 1: NO RACIAL SEGREGATION CITY 2: LOW RACIAL SEGREGATION

pb,=800 pb,=800 pb,=0 pb,= 0 pb,=0 pb,=0 pb,=0 pb,= O

pb=800 pb=800 pb=0 pbl=0 pb=1066 pb=1066 pb -0 pbl=0

pb=800 pb=800 pb=0 pbl=0 pb=1066 pb=1066 pbl= 0 pbl=0

pb=800 pb=800 pbl=0 pbl=0 pb=1066 pbl 1066 pbl= 0 pbl= 0

CITY 3: HIGH RACIAL SEGREGATION CITY 4: COMPLETE RACIAL SEGREGATION

pbl 0 pb =0 pb=0 pb=0 pbl= 0 pb=0 pb=0 pb= 0

pb=0 pb=0 pb=0 pbl= 0 pb=0 pb=0 pb=0 pbl= 0

pb=1600 pb=1600 pb=0 pbl= 0 pb=0 pb=0 pbl 0 pbl= 0

wealthierblacks and whiteson the nonpoorside of townexperienceno

well as race createsfourtypesof neighborhoods: poor black areas, poor

a povertyrate of .350. With completeracial segregation,of course,the

ECONOMIC DISLOCATION IN A SEGREGATED ENVIRONMENT

e4. .E& xk2iS

::: ...4. .. :. 0 En*:

sumedincomeshift,undervaryingconditionsofclass and racialsegrega-

in figure2. In a citysegregatedby class as well as race, any increasein

and blacks to vastlydifferent

SEGREGATION AND THE CREATION OF THE UNDERCLASS

proportionately, and blacksand whitesdo notexperienceanydifferential

tion of racial segregationon a citythat is already segregatedby class

boarded up. With no racial or class segregation,veryfew homes are

C~~4r~~~)lf) ~ O rl 666 c-. t

e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .0m0 bewb

hoods are likelyto be of lower qualitythan thoseprovidedin nonpoor

trendsby pointingto the class-specificeffectsof governmentwelfare

ghetto. Thus, racial segregationis crucial to understandingand ex-

The role that segregationplays in the creationof the underclassalso

of policiestowardpovertyand the underclass.In recentyears,a variety

intotheirsocial and economicenvi-

PREDICTED Percentage Poverty

Levy,Frank. 1987.Dollarsand Dreams:The Changing

You might also like

C4r~)lf) ~ O rl 666 c-. t