Issues o f O u r T im e

O ther titles
MORE THAN
KWAME A N T H O N Y APPIAH
Cosmopolitanism
JUST RACE
AMARTYA SEN E IN G BLACK AN D P O O R IN T H E I N N E R CITY
Identity and Violence: The Illusion o f Destiny

ALAN D E R S H O W I T Z
Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways

CHARLES FRIED
Modern Liberty and the Limits o f Government

LOUIS MENAND
The Marketplace o f Ideas: Reform and Resistance in the American University

CLAUDE STEELE
Wi l l iam Julius Wilson
Whistling Vivaldi and Other Clues to How Stereotypes Affect Us

F orth com in g authors

W. W. N O R T O N & C O M P A N Y

A MY G U T M A N N
NICHOLAS LEMANN
24 MORE THAN JU ST RACE

devoted to racialist structural factors such as discrim ination and

segregation. I hope in this discussion, however, to encourage the
CHAPTER 2
developm ent of a fram ew ork for understanding the form ation and
m ain ten an ce of racial inequality and racial group outcom es that
integrates cultural factors w ith two types of structural forces: those
th at directly reflect explicit racial bias and those th at do not.
In th e ensuing chapters I apply this fram ew ork to three top­ THE FORGES S H A P I N G
ics p ertain in g to th e inner-city A frican A m erican experience th at
have generated th e m ost intense debates: the form ation and p er­
C O N C E N T R A TED
sistence of th e inner-city ghetto, the plight of black males, and
the breakdow n of th e black family. Naturally, in this process I
POVERTY
raise som e w arn ing flags about incorporating cultural argum ents
into our analysis of race and poverty th at we should not ignore.
N evertheless, th e long-standing problem of race in the U nited
States calls for a bold, new perspective. I hope to pursue such a
perspective in th e chapters th at follow.

hrough th e second h alf of th e 1990s and into th e early years

T of the tw enty-first century, public attention to th e plight of

poor black A m ericans seem ed to wane. T here was scant m edia
attention to the problem of concentrated urb an poverty (neigh­
borhoods in w hich a high percentage of th e residents fall b eneath
th e federally designated poverty line), little or no discussion of
inner-city challenges by m ainstream political leaders, and even an
apparent quiescence on th e part of ghetto residents them selves.
T his situation was dram atically different from th e 1960s, w hen
th e transition from legal segregation to a m ore racially open society
had been pun ctu ated by social u n rest th at som etim es expressed
itself in violent term s, as seen in th e riots th at followed th e assas­
sination of Dr. M artin L u th er King Jr.
In 2005, however, H u rrican e K atrina exposed concentrated
26 M O R E T H A N .JUST R A G E The Forces Shaping Concentrated Poverty 27

poverty in N ew Orleans. W hen television cam eras focused on the If television cam eras had focused on th e urb an poor in N ew
flooding, th e people trapped in houses and apartm ents, and the Orleans, or on any inner-city ghetto, before Katrina, I believe th at
vast devastation, m any A m ericans were shocked to see the squalid the initial reaction to descriptions of poverty and poverty concen­
living conditions of the poor. O f course, the devastation of K atrina tration would have b een unsym pathetic. Public opinion polls in
was broadly visited upon the residents of N ew O rleans— black the U nited States, as we shall soon see, routinely reflect th e notion
and white, rich and poor, property owner and public housing te n ­ that people are poor and jobless because of their ow n shortcom ings
a n t alike. B ut although m any residents w ere able to flee, th e very or inadequacies. In other words, few people would have reflected
poor, lacking autom obiles or m oney for transportation and lodg­ on how the larger forces in society— segregation, discrim ination,
ing, stayed to w ait out th e storm , w ith tragic results. A nd through a lack of economic opportunity, failing public schools— adversely
Katrina, the nation’s attention b ecam e riveted to these poor urban affect the inner-city poor. However, because K atrina was clearly a
neighborhoods. natural disaster beyond th e control of th e inner-city poor, A m eri­
Some people argued th at K atrina dem onstrated how fool­ cans were m uch m ore sym pathetic. In a sense, K atrina tu rn ed out
hardy it is to rely on the governm ent for protection rather th an to be som ething of a cruel n atural experim ent, w herein better-off
on oneself and control of one’s own fate. However, it is unfair and A m ericans could readily see th e effects of racial isolation and
in d eed u n w arranted to blam e people w ith lim ited resources for chronic econom ic subordination.
being trapped in their neighborhoods and vulnerable to natural Despite the lack of national public awareness of the problems of
disasters. People who reside in these poor, ghetto neighborhoods the urban poor prior to Katrina, social scientists have rightly devoted
include not only those on public assistance, bu t also the working considerable attention to concentrated poverty because it magnifies
poor, m any of w hom have never been on welfare. the problems associated w ith poverty in general: joblessness, crime,
T h e fact th at m any families in the inner city of N ew O rleans delinquency, drug trafficking, broken families, and dysfunctional
were trapped there during K atrina because they did not have schools. Neighborhoods of highly concentrated poverty are seen as
access to autom obiles an d other m eans of transportation is a prob­ dangerous, and therefore they becom e isolated, socially and eco­
lem th at is not unique to N ew O rleans. For example, research nomically, as people go out of their way to avoid them .2
conducted in th e C hicago inner-city ghetto areas revealed th a t If social scientists are to effectively and comprehensively
only 19 percent of th e residents have access to an autom obile.1 A explain the experiences and social outcom es of inner-city resi­
person in th ese segregated and highly concentrated poverty areas dents to the larger public, they m ust consider not only how explicit
could be very disciplined and responsible, working every day for racial structural forces directly contribute to inequality and con­
m inim um wages and barely m aking ends m eet, in no position to centrated poverty, b u t also how political actions and im personal
buy and m aintain an autom obile; and by virtue of his or her low economic forces indirectly affect life in th e in n er city. Also im por­
incom e, th a t person w ould be completely dependent on public ta n t are th e effects of national racial beliefs and cultural constraints
transportation. No one in such a situation could quickly relocate th at have emerged from years of racial isolation and chronic eco­
his or her fam ily to other areas. nom ic subordination.
 28 MORE THAN JUST RACE The Forces Shaping C oncentrated Poverty 29

increasingly unattractive in n er cities. B eginning in th e 1950s,

The Role of Political Actions the suburbanization of th e m iddle class, already under way w ith
government-subsidized loans to veterans, was aided fu rth e r by
Ever since 1934, w ith th e establishm ent of th e F ederal H ousing federal transportation and highway policies, w hich included th e
A dm inistration (FHA), a program necessitated by the massive building of freeway netw orks through th e hearts of m any cities.
m ortgage foreclosures during the G reat Depression, the US gov­ A lthough these policies were seem ingly nonracial, the line here
e rn m e n t has sought to enable citizens to becom e hom e owners betw een ostensibly nonracial an d explicitly racial is gray. For
by underw riting mortgages. In the years following W orld W ar II, example, we m ight ask w h ether such freeways would have also
however, th e federal governm ent contributed to the early decay been constructed though w ealthier w hite neighborhoods.
of inner-city neighborhoods by w ithholding m ortgage capital and In any case, th e freeways h ad a devastating im pact on th e
m aking it difficult for these areas to retain or attract families who neighborhoods of black A m ericans. T h ese developm ents not only
were able to purchase their own homes. S purred on by the massive spurred relocation from th e cities to the suburbs am ong better-off
foreclosures during th e G reat D epression, th e federal governm ent residents, bu t the freeways them selves “created barriers betw een
began underw riting mortgages in an effort to enable citizens to the sections of the cities, walling off poor and m inority neighbor­
becom e hom e owners. But the FH A selectively adm inistered the hoods from central business districts.”4 For instance, a n um ber of
m ortgage program by form alizing a process th a t excluded certain studies revealed how R ichard J. Daley, the form er mayor of Chicago,
urb an neighborhoods by using em pirical data th at suggested a used the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 to route expressways
likely loss of investm ent in these areas. through im poverished A frican A m erican neighborhoods, resulting
Redlining, as this practice cam e to be know n, was assessed in even greater segregation and isolation.5 A lasting legacy of th at
largely on racial com position. Although m any neighborhoods w ith policy is the fourteen-lane D an Ryan Expressway, w hich created
a considerable num ber of E uropean im m igrants w ere redlined, a barrier betw een black and w hite neighborhoods.6
virtually all black neighborhoods were excluded. H om e buyers A nother particularly egregious example of th e deleterious
hoping to purchase a hom e in a redlined neighborhood were u n i­ effects of highway construction is Birm ingham , A labam a’s, in ter­
versally denied m ortgages, regardless of their financial qualifica­ state highway system, w hich curved an d tw isted to bisect sev­
tions. T his practice severely restricted opportunities for building eral black neighborhoods rath er th a n taking a m ore direct route
or even m aintaining quality housing in the in n er city, w hich in through some predom inantly w hite neighborhoods. T h e highway
m any ways set th e stage for th e urban blight th a t m any A m ericans system essentially followed th e boundaries th at had b een estab ­
associate w ith black neighborhoods. This action was clearly m oti­ lished in 1926 as p art of th e city’s racial zoning law, although th ese
vated by racial bias, and it was not until the 1960s th at the FH A boundaries technically h ad been rem oved a few years before th e
discontinued m ortgage restrictions based on th e racial com posi­ highway construction began in 1956.7 O th e r examples include the
tion of th e neighborhood.3 federal and state highway system in A tlanta, Georgia, w hich also
S ubsequent policy decisions worked to trap blacks in these separated w hite and black neighborhoods; and th e construction of
 30 MORE THAN JU ST RACE The Forces Shaping C oncentrated Poverty 31

1-9!) in Florida, w hich displaced m any black residents in M iam i’s once again, we see a practice th a t denied A frican A m ericans the
historically black O vertow n neighborhood.8 opportunity to move from segregated inner-city neighborhoods.
M oreover, th rough its housing-m arket incentives, th e federal Explicit racial policies in th e suburbs reinforced this segrega­
governm ent drew m iddle-class w hites away from cities and into tion by allowing suburbs to separate th eir financial resources and
th e suburbs.9 G overnm ent policies such as m ortgages for veter­ m unicipal budgets from cities. To be m ore specific, in th e n in e ­
ans and m ortgage-interest tax exem ptions for developers enabled teen th and early tw entieth centuries, strong m unicipal services in
th e quick, cheap production of m assive am ounts of trac t h o u s­ cities w ere very attractive to residents of sm all tow ns and suburbs;
ing.10 A lthough these policies appeared to be nonracial, they as a result, cities tended to annex suburbs and surrounding areas.
facilitated th e exodus of w hite working and m iddle-class fam ilies But the relations betw een cities and suburbs in th e U nited States
from u rb a n neighborhoods and thereby indirectly co ntributed to began to change following th e G reat Depression; th e century-long
th e grow th of segregated neighborhoods w ith high concentra­ influx of poor m igrants who required expensive services and paid
tions of poverty. relatively little in taxes could no longer be profitably absorbed by
A classic exam ple of this effect of housing-m arket incentives is the city economy. A nnexation largely ended in th e m id-tw entieth
th e m ass-produced suburban Levittow n neighborhoods th at were century as suburbs began to successfully resist incorporation. Sub­
first erected in N ew York, and later in Pennsylvania, N ew Jersey, urban com m unities also drew tighter boundaries by im plem enting
and P uerto Rico, by Levitt & Sons. T he hom es in these neigh­ zoning laws, discrim inatory land use controls, and site selection
borhoods were m anufactured on a large scale, w ith an assembly- practices, w hich m ade it difficult for inner-city racial m inorities
line m odel of production, and they were arranged in carefully to access these areas because they were effectively used to screen
engineered su burban neighborhoods th at included m any public out residents on the basis of race.
am enities, such as shopping centers and space for public schools. As separate political ju risdictions, suburbs also exercised
T h ese neighborhoods represented an ideal alternative for people a great deal of autonom y through covenants and deed restric­
seeking to escape cram ped city apartm ents, and they w ere often tions. In the face of m ounting pressu re for integration in th e
to u ted as “utopian com m unities” th at enabled people to live out 1960s, “suburbs chose to diversify by race rath er th a n class.
th e su b u rb an dream .” V eterans were able to pu rch ase a Lev­ T hey retain ed zoning and o th er restrictions th at allowed only
ittow n hom e for a few thousand dollars w ith no m oney down, affluent blacks (and in som e instances Jews) to enter, thereby
fin an ced w ith low -interest m ortgages guaranteed by th e Veterans intensifying the concen tratio n and isolation of th e urb an poor.”12
A dm inistration. However, initially th e Levitts w ould n o t sell to A lthough th ese policies clearly h ad racial connotations, they also
A frican A m ericans. T he first black family moved into the N ew reflected class bias and h elp ed reinforce a process already am ply
York Levittow n neighborhood in 1957, having p u rchased a hom e supported by federal governm ent policies— namely, th e exodus
from a w hite family,11 and they endured harassm ent, h ate mail, of w hite working- and m iddle-class fam ilies from u rb an n eig h ­
and th reats for several m onths after moving in. Levittow n, N ew borhoods and the growing segregation of low -incom e blacks in
York, rem ains a predom inantly w hite com m unity today. Here, inner-city neighborhoods.
 32 MORE THAK JU S T RAGE The Forces Shaping C oncentrated Poverty 33

Federal public housing policy contributed to th e gradual growth the m ost economically disadvantaged segm ents of the population.
of segregated black ghettos as well. T he federal public housing T his change in federal housing policy coincided w ith the Sec­
program ’s policies evolved in two stages th at represented two dis­ ond G reat M igration of A frican A m ericans from th e ru ral South
tin ct styles. T he W agner-Steagall H ousing A ct of 1937 initiated to the cities of the N o rth east and M idw est, w hich lasted thirty
th e first stage. C oncerned th at the construction of public housing years— from 1940 to 1970. T h is m ass m ovem ent of A frican A m er­
m ight depress private rent levels, groups such as the US Building icans was even larger and m ore sustained th an the first G reat
and L oan League and th e N ational Association of Real E state M igration, w hich began at th e tu rn of th e tw entieth century and
Boards successfully lobbied C ongress to require, by law, th at for ended during th e G reat Depression, and it had a m ore profound
each new u n it of public housing, one “unsafe or unsanitary” unit im pact on the transform ation of th e inner city.
of public housing be destroyed. As M ark C ondon points out, “this As the b lack urban population in th e N o rth grew and p re ­
policy increased em ploym ent in the urban construction m arket cipitated greater dem ands for housing, pressu re m o u n ted in
w hile insulating private ren t levels by barring the expansion of the w hite com m unities to keep blacks out. S u burban co m m u n i­
housing stock available to low-income families.”13 ties, w ith th eir restrictive covenants an d special zoning laws,
T h e early years of the public housing program produced posi­ refused to perm it th e co n stru ctio n of public housing. A nd th e
tive results. Initially, th e program served m ainly in tact families federal governm ent acq u iesced to organized w hite in n er-city
tem porarily displaced by the D epression or in need of housing groups th at opposed th e co n stru ctio n of public housing in th eir
after th e end of W orld W ar II. For m any of th ese families, public neighborhoods. T hus, p u blic housing u n its w ere overwhelm ingly
housing was th e first step on th e road tow ard econom ic recovery. co n cen trated in th e overcrow ded and deteriorating inner-city
T h eir stays in the projects were relatively brief because they were ghettos— th e poorest and least pow erful sections of th e city and
able to accum ulate sufficient economic resources to move on to th e m etropolitan area. “T his growing p o pulation of politically
private housing. T he econom ic m obility of these fam ilies “con­ w eak urban poor was u n ab le to co u n teract th e desires of vocal
tributed to th e sociological stability of the first public housing m iddle- and working-class w hites for segregated housing,”16h o u s­
com m unities, and explains the program ’s initial success.”14 ing th at w ould keep blacks out of w hite neighborhoods. In short,
Passage of th e H ousing Act of 1949 m arked the beginning public housing becam e a federally fu n d ed in stitu tio n th a t isolated
of th e second policy stage. It instituted and funded the urban fam ilies by race and class, resulting in high co ncentrations of poor
renew al program designed to eradicate urban slums and therefore black fam ilies in inner-city g h etto s.17
was seemingly nonracial. However, the public housing th at it cre­ In the last quarter of th e tw en tieth century, new developm ents
ated “was now m eant to collect the ghetto residents left homeless led to fu rth er changes in th ese neighborhoods. O n e of the m ost
by th e urb an renew al bulldozers.”15 A new (lower) incom e ceiling significant was the out-m igration of m iddle-incom e blacks. Before
for public housing residency was established by the federal public the 1970s, A frican A m erican fam ilies h ad faced extrem ely strong
housing authority, and families w ith incomes above th at ceiling barriers w hen they considered moving into w hite neighborhoods.
were evicted. T hus, access to public housing was restricted to only N ot only did m any experience overt discrim ination in th e housing
34 MORE THAN JU ST RACE The Forces Shaping C oncentrated Poverty 35

m arket, but some were victim s of violent attacks. A lthough fair- In addition, and m ore recently, a fu n dam ental shift in the fed ­
housing audits continue to reveal the existence of discrim ination eral governm ent’s support for basic u rb an program s profoundly
in th e housing m arket, the fair-housing legislation, including the aggravated the problem s of inner-city neighborhoods. Beginning
Fair H ousing A m endm ents Act of 1988, reduced the strengths of in 1980, w hen Ronald Reagan b ecam e president, sharp spending
th ese barriers. A nd m iddle-incom e A frican A m ericans increased cuts on direct aid to cities dram atically reduced budgets for gen­
their efforts to move from concentrated black poverty areas to eral revenue sharing— u n restricted funds (money th at can be used
m ore desirable neighborhoods in the m etropolitan area, including for any purpose)— urb an m ass transit, econom ic developm ent
w hite neighborhoods.18 assistance, urb an developm ent action grants, social service block
T his p attern represents an im portant change in the form ation grants, local public works, com pensatory education, public ser­
of neighborhoods. In earlier years, com m unities undergoing racial vice jobs, and job training. M any of th ese program s are designed
change from w hite to black had tended to experience an increase to help disadvantaged individuals gain som e traction in attaining
in population density, as a result of the black m igration from the financial security.22 It is telling th at th e federal contribution was
South. B ecause of the housing dem and, particularly in the late 17.5 percent of the total city budgets in 1977, but only 5.4 percent
stages of th e succession from w hite to black, hom es and apart­ by 2000.23
m ents in these neighborhoods were often subdivided into smaller T hese cuts were particularly acute for older cities in th e E ast
u n its.19 and M idw est th at depended largely on federal and state aid to
However, 1970 m arked th e end of the great m igration wave of fund social services for their poor populations and to m aintain aging
blacks from th e South to northern urban areas, and two develop­ infrastructure. In 1980, for example, federal and state aid funded
m ents affected the course of population m ovem ent to the inner 50 to 69 percent of th e budgets in six of these cities, and 40 to
cities after that. Im provem ents in transportation m ade it easier for 50 percent of budgets in eleven other cities. By 1989, only three
workers to live outside the central city, and industries gradually cities— Buffalo, Baltimore, and N ewark— continued to receive over
shifted to th e suburbs because of the increased residential sub­ 50 percent of their budgets in state aid; and only two cities—
urbanization of th e labor force and th e lower cost of production. M ilw aukee and B oston— received betw een 40 and 50 p ercen t of
B ecause of th e suburbanization of em ploym ent and im provem ents their budgets in state aid. To illustrate further, N ew York C ity’s
in transportation, inner-city m anufacturing jobs were no longer a state aid dropped from 52 p ercent of its budget in 1980 to 32
strong factor pulling m igrants to central cities.20 percent in 1989, resulting in a loss of $4 billion.24 H ere, once
W ith th e decline of industrial em ploym ent in the inner city, again, is a policy th at is nonracial on th e surface— although it
th e influx of southern blacks to northern cities ceased and m any coincided w ith changes in th e proportion of w hite and nonw hite
poor black neighborhoods, especially those in th e M idw est and urb an residents— b u t nonetheless has indirectly contributed to
N ortheast, changed from densely packed areas of recently arrived crystallization of the inner-city ghetto.
m igrants to com m unities gradually abandoned by the working and T h e decline in federal su p p o rt for cities sin ce 1980 co in ­
m iddle classes.21 cided w ith an increase in th e im m igration of people from poorer
 36 MORE THAN JU ST RACE The Forces Shaping C oncentrated Poverty 37

countries— m ainly low-skilled w orkers from M exico— an d th e A lthough fiscal conditions in m any cities im proved signifi­
steady m igration of w hites to the suburbs. W ith m inorities dis­ cantly in th e latter h alf of th e 1990s, this b rief period of economic
placing w hites as a growing share of the central-city population, progress was ended by the recession of 2001, followed by a jobless
th e im plications for the urban tax base w ere profound, especially recovery (i.e., a recovery th at failed to improve th e em ploym ent
in A m erica’s cities. A ccording to th e US C ensus B ureau, in 2000 rate). T he decline of federal and state support for central cities, the
th e m edian an nual household incom e for Latinos was about largest u rb an areas in m etropolitan regions, h as caused a num ber
$14,000 less th an th at of w hite households. W ith a declining tax of severe fiscal and service crises, particularly in th e older cities
base and th e sim ultaneous loss of federal funds th at heralded of the E ast and M idwest, such as D etroit, Cleveland, Baltimore,
th e intro d u ctio n of the N ew Federalist policies of the Reagan and Philadelphia.
adm inistration, m unicipalities had trouble raising enough rev­ Moreover, th e George W. Bush adm inistration’s substantial
en u e to cover basic services such as garbage collection, street reductions in federal aid to the states exacerbated th e problems
cleaning, an d police protection. Some even cu t such services in in cities reliant on state fu n d s.27 Because of th ese com bined eco­
order to avoid bankruptcy.25 nom ic and political changes, m any central cities and in n er suburbs
T his financial crisis left m any cities ill equipped to handle lack the fiscal m eans to address th e concentrated problem s of
th re e devastating public h ea lth problem s th at h ad em erged in the joblessness, family breakups, and failing public schools.28 Given
1980s and had disproportionately affected areas of concentrated the current budget deficit— w hich continues to grow in th e face
poverty: (1) th e prevalence of drug trafficking and associated vio­ of th e Bush adm inistration’s sim ultaneous surrender of revenue
lent crim es; (2) th e A ID S epidem ic and its escalating public health in the form of large tax cuts for w ealthy citizens and its spend­
costs; and (3) th e rise in th e hom eless population n o t only of indi­ ing of billions of federal dollars to pay for th e wars in Iraq and
viduals, b u t of whole fam ilies as well.26 A lthough drug addiction, A fghanistan, the w ar against terror, and th e rebuilding of Iraq’s
drug-related violence, A ID S, an d hom elessness are found in m any in frastru ctu re— support for program s to revitalize cities in general
A m erican com m unities, th eir im pact on th e black ghetto is pro­ and inner-city neighborhoods in p articular will very likely garner
found. A n um ber of cities, especially fiscally strapped cities, have even less support from policy m akers in th e fu tu re.29
w atched helplessly as these problem s— aggravated by the reduc­ Finally, policy m akers indirectly contributed to concentrated
tion of citywide social services, as well as high levels of neighbor­ poverty in inner-city neighborhoods w ith decisions th a t decreased
hood joblessness— have reinforced th e perception th at cities are th e attractiveness of low-paying jobs an d accelerated the relative
dangerous and th reatening places to live. Accordingly, betw een decline in low-income workers’ wages. In particular, in th e absence
the 1980s and 2000, m any working- and m iddle-class urban resi­ of an effective labor m arket policy, policy m akers tolerated industry
dents continued to relocate to the suburbs. Thus, w hile poverty practices th at underm ine worker security— including th e erosion
and joblessness, and th e social problem s they generate, rem ain of benefits and the rise of involuntary part-tim e em ploym ent—
prom inent in ghetto neighborhoods, m any cities have fewer and an d they allowed th e purchasing pow er of th e federal m inim um
fewer resources to com bat them . wage to erode to one of its lowest levels in decades. A fter adjust­
 38 MORE T H A N JU S T RAGE The Forces Shaping C oncentrated Poverty 39

ing for inflation, th e current federal m inim um wage of $6.55 is and m iddle-class w hite fam ilies from inner-city neighborhoods.
24 p ercent lower th an the average level of the m inim um wage in U rban renew al and the building of freeway and highway networks
the 1960s, 23 percent lower than in the 1970s, 6 percent lower through the h earts of m any cities led to th e destruction of m any
th an in th e 1980s, and only 1 percent higher th an in the 1990s.30 viable low-income black neighborhoods. A nd there were no effec­
Clearly, th e recent action by a D em ocratic C ongress to increase tive labor m arket policies to safeguard th e real value of th e m in i­
th e federally m andated m inim um wage was long overdue. m um wage, thereby m aking it m ore difficult for th e inner-city
In sum , federal governm ent policies, even those th at are not working poor to support th eir families.
explicitly racial, have had a profound im pact on inner-city neigh­ T hese developm ents have occurred in m any cities across th e
borhoods. Som e of th ese policies are clearly m otivated by racial country, but they perhaps have b een felt m ore in th e older central
bias, such as th e FH A ’s redlining of black neighborhoods in the cities of th e M idw est and N o rth east— th e traditional R ust Belt—
1940s and 1950s, as well as the federal governm ent’s decision to w here depopulated poverty areas have experienced even greater
confine construction of public housing projects m ainly to inner- problems.
city, poor, black neighborhoods. In other cases it seem s th a t racial
bias or concerns about race influenced b u t w ere not th e sole inspi­
ration for political decisions, such as the fiscal policies of the N ew
Federalism , w hich resulted in drastic cuts in federal aid to cities The Impact of Economic Forces
whose populations h ad becom e m ore brow n and black.
T h e p o in t of conservative fiscal policy— no m atter whose Older urban areas were once th e hubs of econom ic grow th and
adm inistration prom ulgated it (Reagan, George FI. W. Bush, or activity and therefore m ajor destinations for people in search of
George W. B ush)— was ostensibly to subject governm ent to fin an ­ economic opportunity. However, th e econom ies of m any of these
cial discipline. N evertheless, the enactm ent of such policies cre­ cities have since b een eroded by complex econom ic transform a­
ates financial constraints th a t m ake it difficult to generate the tions and shifting p attern s in m etropolitan developm ent. T hese
political support to effectively com bat problem s such as jobless­ econom ic forces are typically considered nonracial— in th e sense
ness, drug trafficking, AID S, family stress, and failing schools. th at their origins are not th e direct result of actions, processes, or
F urtherm ore, as we have seen already, other policies th at range ideologies th at explicitly reflect racial bias. But nevertheless they
from those th a t clearly lack a racial agenda to those w here the have accelerated neighborhood decline in th e in n er city and w id­
line betw een racial and nonracial is som ew hat gray have h ad a ened gaps in race and incom e b etw een cities and suburbs.31
profound im pact on inner cities and their poor black residents: As I m entioned in C h ap ter 1, since th e m id-tw entieth century
Federal transportation and highway policy created an in frastru c­ th e m ode of production in th e U nited States has shifted dram ati­
tu re for jobs in th e suburbs. M ortgage-interest tax exemptions and cally from m anufacturing to one increasingly fueled by finance,
m ortgages for veterans jointly facilitated the exodus of working- services, and technology. T his shift has accom panied th e tech n o ­
 40 MORE THAN JU ST RACE The Forces Shaping C oncentrated Poverty 41

logical revolution, w hich has transform ed traditional industries local economy suffers w hen residents have fewer dollars to spend
and brought about changes ranging from stream lined inform ation in their neighborhoods.36
technology to biom edical engineering.32 Beginning in th e mid-1970s, th e em ploym ent balance betw een
In other words, the relationship betw een technology and in ter­ central cities and suburbs shifted m arkedly to th e suburbs. Since
national com petition has eroded the basic institutions of the mass 1980, over tw o-thirds of em ploym ent grow th has occurred outside
production system. In the last several decades alm ost all im prove­ the central city: m anufacturing is now over 70 p ercent suburban,
m ents in productivity have been associated w ith technology and and wholesale and retail trade is ju st un d er 70 p ercent su bur­
hum an capital, thereby drastically reducing the im portance of ban.37 T h e suburbs of m any central cities, developed originally
physical capital.33 W ith the increased globalization of economic as bedroom localities for com m uters to th e central business and
activity, firm s have spread their operations around the world, often m anufacturing districts, have becom e em ploym ent centers in
relocating their production facilities to developing nations that them selves. In D etroit, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, for example,
have dram atically lower labor costs.34 less than 20 percent of th e jobs are now located w ith in th ree m iles
T hese global economic transform ations have adversely affected of the city center.38
th e com petitive position of m any US Rust Belt cities. For example, Accom panying the rise of suburban and exurban econom ies
Cleveland, D etroit, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and P ittsburgh p er­ has b een a change in com m uting p atterns. Increasingly, workers
form poorly on em ploym ent growth, an im portant traditional m ea­ com pletely bypass the central city by com m uting from one suburb
sure of econom ic perform ance. Nationally, em ploym ent increased to another. “In the C leveland region, for example, less th a n one-
by 25 p ercent betw een 1991 and 2001, yet job grow th in these third of workers com m ute to a job in th e central city and over h alf
older central cities either declined or did not exceed 3 percent.35 (55 percent) begin and end in th e suburbs.”39
W ith th e decline in m anufacturing em ploym ent in m any of the Sprawl and economic stagnation reduce inner-city residents’
n ation’s central cities, m ost of the jobs for lower-skilled workers access to m eaningful econom ic opportunities and thereby fuel
are now in retail and service industries (e.g., store cashiers, cus­ th e econom ic decline of th eir neighborhoods. Spatial m ismatch
tom er service representatives, fast-food servers, custodial workers). is a term th at social scientists use to capture th e relationship
W hereas jobs in m anufacturing industries were unionized, were betw een inner-city residents and suburban jobs: th e opportunities
relatively stable, and carried higher wages, those for workers w ith for em ploym ent are geographically disconnected from th e people
low to m odest levels of education in the retail and service indus­ w ho need the jobs. In Cleveland, for example, although entry-level
tries provided lower wages, tended to be unstable, and lacked the workers are concentrated in inner-city neighborhoods, 80 percent
benefits and worker protections— such as workers’ health in su r­ of th e entry-level jobs are located in th e suburbs.40 T h e lack of
ance, m edical leave, retirem ent benefits, and paid vacations— feasible transportation options exacerbates this m ism atch. In addi­
typically offered through unionization. Thus, workers relegated tion to the challenges in learning about and reaching jobs, there is
to low-wage service and retail firm s are more likely to experience persistent racial discrim ination in hiring practices, especially for
hardships as they struggle to m ake ends m eet. In addition, the younger and less experienced m inority workers.41
42 MORE THAN JU ST RACE The Forces Shaping C oncentrated Poverty 43

W ith th e departure of higher-incom e families, the least constraints include cultural fram es (shared group constructions of
upw ardly m obile individuals in society— m ainly low-income p eo ­ reality) th at influence or direct social action, and, as I shall d em ­
ple of color— are left behind in neighborhoods w ith high concen­ onstrate m ore specifically in C h ap ters 3 and 4, th at action m ay
trations of poverty and deteriorating physical conditions. T hese reinforce racial inequality. It is im portant to rem em ber th at one
neighborhoods offer few jobs and typically lack basic services and of the effects of living in a racially segregated, poor neighborhood
am enities, such as banks, grocery stores and other retail establish­ is th e exposure to cultural fram ing, habits, styles of behavior, and
m ents, parks, and quality transit.42 Typically, these com m unities particular skills th at em erged from p attern s of racial exclusion;
also suffer from substandard schools, m any w ith run-dow n physi­ these attributes and practices m ay n o t be conducive to facilitating
cal plants. social mobility. For example, as we shall discuss in C h ap ter 3,
Two of th e m ost visible indicators of neighborhood decline som e social scientists have discussed th e negative effects of a
are abandoned buildings and vacant lots. According to one recent “cool-pose culture” th at has em erged am ong young black m en in
report, there are 60,000 abandoned and vacant properties in P hil­ the in n er city, w hich includes m aking sexual conquests, hanging
adelphia, 40,000 in D etroit, and 26,000 in Baltim ore.43 T hese out on the street after school, taking party drugs, and listening to
inner-city properties have lost residents in the wake of the out­ hip-hop m usic. T hese p attern s of behavior are seen as a hindrance
m igration of m ore economically mobile families, and the reloca­ to social m obility in th e larger society.45
tion of m any m anufacturing industries.44 The use of a cultural argum ent, however, is not w ithout peril.
Anyone who wishes to und erstan d A m erican society m ust be
aware th at explanations focusing on th e cultural traits of inner-
city residents are likely to draw far m ore attention from policy
The Role of Cultural Factors m akers and the general public th an structural explanations will.
It is an unavoidable fact th at A m ericans ten d to deem phasize the
Even though these structural changes have adversely affected structural origins and social significance of poverty and welfare.
inner-city neighborhoods, there is a w idespread notion in Am erica In other words, the popular view is th at people are poor or on
th at the problems plaguing people in the inner city have little to do welfare because of their own personal shortcom ings. Perhaps this
w ith racial discrim ination or the effects of living in segregated pov­ tendency is rooted in our tradition of “rugged individualism .” If, in
erty. For m any A m ericans, the individual and the family bear the America, you can grow up to be anything you w ant to be, th en any
m ain responsibility for their low social and economic achievem ent destiny— even poverty— can be rightly viewed through th e lens
in society. If unchallenged, this view may suggest th at cultural of personal achievem ent or failure. C ertainly it’s true th at m ost
traits are at th e root of problems experienced by the ghetto poor. A m ericans have little direct knowledge or understanding of the
As I po in ted out in C h ap ter 1, culture provides tools (habits, com plex n ature of race and poverty in the inner city, and therefore
skills, and styles) and creates constraints (restrictions or limits broadly based cultural explanations th a t focus on personal
on outlooks and behavior) in patterns of social interaction. T hese character are m ore likely to gain acceptance.
44 MORE T HAN J U S T RAGE The Forces Shaping C oncentrated Poverty 45

W e can easily see th at explanations focusing on the charac­ of effort by the poor them selves.” In fact, across all th ree surveys,
ter and capabilities of the individual dom inate A m erican th in k ­ m ore th an nine out of ten A m erican adults felt th at lack of effort
ing. C onsider studies of national public opinion. A fter analyzing was either very or som ew hat im p o rtan t in term s of causing pov­
national survey data collected in 1969 and 1980, Jam es R. Kluegel erty. Fewer than 10 percent felt it was not im portant.
and Eliot R. Sm ith concluded th at “m ost A m ericans believe that T h e weight A m ericans give to individualistic factors persists
opportunity for econom ic advancem ent is widely available, that today. A 2007 survey by th e Pew R esearch C en ter revealed th at
econom ic outcom es are determ ined by individuals’ efforts and “fully tw o-thirds of all A m ericans believe personal factors, rather
talents (or their lack) and th at in general econom ic inequality is th a n racial discrim ination, explain why m any A frican A m ericans
fair.”46 Indeed, responses to questions in these two national A m eri­ have difficulty getting ahead in life; ju st 19% blam e discrim ina­
can surveys revealed th at individualistic explanations for poverty tion.”48 Nearly three-fourths of US w hites (71 percent), a m ajority
(e.g., lack of effort or ability, poor moral character, slack work of Elispanics (59 percent), and even a slight m ajority of blacks (53
skills) were overwhelm ingly favored over structural explanations percent) “believe th at blacks who have not gotten ahead in life are
(e.g., lack of adequate schooling, low wages, lack of jobs). T he m ainly responsible for their own situation.”49
m ost frequently selected item s in the surveys w ere “lack of th rift T hese findings on th e im portance of individualistic causes
or proper m oney m anagem ent skills,” “lack of effort,” “lack of abil­ of poverty contrast sharply w ith those in a survey conducted in
ity or talent” (attitudes from one’s family background th at im pede twelve E uropean countries (England, Ireland, France, Belgium,
social mobility); "failure of society to provide good schools”; and H olland, Switzerland, G erm any, Norway, Sweden, Luxem bourg,
“loose morals and drunkenness.” Except for “failure of society to A ustria, and Italy) in 1990.50 A su bstantial m ajority of th e citi­
provide good schools,” all of these phrases point to shortcom ings zens in each of these countries favored stru ctu ral over individual
on th e p art of individuals as the causes of poverty. T he A m ericans explanations for th e causes of poverty an d joblessness in their
who answ ered th e survey considered structural factors, such as own nations. Given th e rising eth n ic and racial tensions betw een
“low wages,” “failure of industry to provide jobs,” and “racial dis­ host populations and m igrants of color from Asia, A frica, and
crim ination” least im portant of all. T he rankings of these factors th e M iddle East, we m ight have expected th ese attitudes to shift
rem ained virtually unchanged betw een 1969 and 1980. closer to those held by A m ericans. However, a 2007 survey of
A 1990 survey using these sam e questions, reported by Law­ tw enty-seven E uropean U nion m em ber states revealed th a t only
rence Bobo and Ryan A. Sm ith, revealed a slight increase among one in five E uropean U nion citizens supported th e idea th a t p e o ­
those who associate poverty w ith institutional and structural ple live in poverty because of “laziness and lack of will power.”
causes, especially the “failure of industry to provide enough jobs.”47 Thirty-seven percent viewed “injustice in society as th e cause
N onetheless, A m ericans rem ained strongly disposed to the idea of poverty,” 20 percen t attrib u ted th e cause to “bad luck,” and
th at individuals are largely responsible for their econom ic situ­ 13 p ercent found poverty “an inevitable p art of progress.”51 T he
ations. In the th ree tim es the survey was adm inistered— 1969, attitudes of ordinary E uropean citizens and public rhetoric in th e
1980, and 1990— th e m ost often selected explanation was “lack E uropean U nion focus m uch m ore on stru ctu ral and social in eq ­
46 MORE THAN JU ST RACE The Forces Shaping C oncentrated Poverty 47

uities at large, not on individual behavior, to explain the causes of self-selection bias argue th at th e effects we attrib u te to poor
of poverty and joblessness. Obviously, citizens in other W estern neighborhoods may instead be caused by th e characteristics of
dem ocracies do not share the A m erican em phasis on individual­ families and individuals w ho end up living there. In other words,
istic explanations for th e problem s of poverty. they believe th at disadvantaged neighborhoods m ight not be th e
T h e strength of A m erican cultural sentim ent th at individu­ cause of poor outcom es, b u t rather th at families w ith the w eakest
als are prim arily responsible for poverty presents a dilem m a for job-related skills, w ith th e lowest awareness of and concern for
anyone who seeks th e m ost com prehensive explanation of out­ the effects of th e local environm ent on their children’s social
com es for poor black A m ericans. W hy? Simply because cultural developm ent, w ith attitudes th at h in d er social mobility, and w ith
argum ents th a t focus on individual traits and behavior invariably the m ost burdensom e personal problem s are simply m ore likely to
draw m ore attention th an do structural explanations in the U nited live in these types of neighborhoods.
States. Accordingly, I feel th at a social scientist has an obligation For example, as John Quigley and Steven Raphael point
to try to m ake sure th a t the explanatory power of his or her stru c­ out, “in interpreting cross-sectional data on the isolation of low-
tu ral argum ent is not lost to the reader and to provide a context for incom e workers from job concentrations, it is likely th at those w ith
und erstan d in g cultural responses to chronic economic and racial w eaker attachm ents to th e labor force will have chosen to locate
subordination. in places w here em ploym ent access is low [e.g., inner-city ghetto
L et m e p u rsu e this idea by first considering the neighborhood- neighborhoods]. This is simply because m onthly rents are lower
effects research th at focuses on concentrated poverty. H undreds of in these places.”53
studies have b een published on the effects of concentrated poverty Indeed, som e scholars m aintain th at neighborhood effects dis­
in neighborhood environm ents since the late 1980s. T h e research appear w hen researchers use appropriate statistical techniques
suggests th at concentrated poverty increases the likelihood of to account for self-selection bias.54 B ecause the appropriateness
social isolation (from m ainstream institutions), joblessness, drop­ of m easures capturing neighborhood effects is n o t discussed as
ping out of school, lower educational achievem ent, involvement a m ajor problem in such studies, a p oint th a t I will soon discuss,
in crim e, unsuccessful behavioral developm ent and delinquency m any readers will co n clu d e th a t stru ctu ra l explanations of
am ong adolescents, nonm arital childbirth, and unsuccessful fam ­ co n cen trated poverty and related problem s like discrim ination,
ily m anagem ent.52 In general, the research reveals th at concen­ segregation, and joblessness are less persuasive th an those th a t
trated poverty adversely affects one’s chances in life, beginning in focus on personal attrib u tes. But, as I shall a ttem p t to show,
early childhood and adolescence. there is little basis for ignoring or downplaying neighborhood
Some scholars, however, have been concerned th at these stud­ effects in favor of em phasizing personal attributes. Indeed, liv­
ies reached conclusions about neighborhood effects on the basis of ing in a ghetto neighborhood has b o th stru ctu ral and cultural
data th at do not address the problem of self-selection bias, a term effects th at com prom ise life chances above and beyond personal
used in research to describe the effect of people grouping th em ­ attributes.
selves together according to com m on characteristics. Proponents A rgum ents about self-selection bias w ere n o t seen as seri­
 48 M O R E T H A N .JUST R AC E T he F o r c e s Shaping C oncentrated Poverty 49

ously challenging conclusions about neighborhood effects until ruling and not a research experim ent,”57 so some argued th at self­
p ublication of th e research on th e M oving to O pportunity selection was still a factor. A fter all, G autreaux participants were
(M T O ) experim ent, a housing pilot program undertaken by the persons struggling to leave poor, inner-city neighborhoods. Some
US D ep artm en t of H ousing and U rban D evelopm ent (H U D ) m ight argue th at perhaps they were successful in their new setting
b etw een 1994 and 1998. T he M T O program was inspired by not because they were no longer defeated by stru ctu ral factors, b u t
th e G autreaux program , an earlier effort to assist m inorities who because they h ad th e gum ption to fight th eir way out of th e ghetto
w ished to leave the inner city. T he G autreaux program was created in the first place.
u n d er a 1976 court order resulting from a judicial finding that T hese criticism s w ere addressed in H U D ’s M T O d em onstra­
th e Chicago H ousing A uthority had deliberately segregated black tion program. M ore specifically, from 1994 to 1997 H U D con­
families through its site selection and ten an t selection policies and ducted a lottery th at aw arded housing vouchers to families living
th e US D ep artm en t of H ousing and U rban D evelopm ent (H U D ) in public housing developm ents in high-poverty neighborhoods
had knowingly funded such violations of civil rights. N am ed in five cities: Boston, Baltim ore, Chicago, Los Angeles, and N ew
for D orothy G autreaux, who initiated the original lawsuit, the York. Families who en tered th e lottery, th u s indicating th eir desire
program sought to rem edy previous segregation by offering black to move, w ere random ly assigned to one of three groups. O n e was
public housing residents a chance to obtain subsidized housing aw arded housing vouchers th a t could b e u sed to re n t in th e private
th roughout th e greater Chicago area. By the tim e the G autreaux m arket in any area, one was aw arded housing vouchers restricted
program en ded in 1998, it had placed 7,100 families, w ith over to private rentals in low-poverty neighborhoods, and one did n o t
half relocating to w hite suburbs. receive either of the two vouchers and was therefore treated as a
As th e program unfolded, it allowed researchers to systematically control group to b e com pared w ith th e o th er two groups.
com pare th e education and em ploym ent experiences of families T h e M T O interim evaluation studies w ere considered superior
who had been assigned to private subsidized housing in the suburbs to the research on th e G autreaux program — as well as other
w ith those of a com parison group w ith sim ilar characteristics and research on neighborhood effects— because they were based on
history who had b een assigned to private apartm ents in the city. data from a random ized experim ental design th at elim inated the
R esearch on this program reveals th at the fam ilies who were self-selection bias “th at h ad m ade it difficult to clearly determ ine
relocated to housing in the suburbs experienced significantly th e association betw een living in poor neighborhoods and individual
higher rates of em ploym ent, lower school dropout rates, and higher outcom es.”58 T he reports and publications on th e interim evalu­
college attendance rates.55 ation, w hich was finalized in 2003, provided m ixed evidence for
A lthough some believed th at the G autreaux program removed neighborhood effects in com parisons betw een th e group whose
th e self-selection bias problem in a quasi-experim ental way, “critics M T O vouchers w ere restricted to low-poverty areas and th e group
were not mollified, because the selection of participants and their th at did not receive vouchers. O n th e one hand, during th e five-
placem ent in new neighborhoods were nonrandom .56 T h at is, “the year period following random assignm ent, th e M T O movers who
G autreaux program was the result of a court-ordered desegregation h ad relocated to low-poverty areas were m ore likely to have expe­
50 MORE T HAN J U S T RAGE The Forces Shaping C oncentrated Poverty 51

rienced im provem ents in m ental health and less likely to be obese, m ent’s interim evaluation, as m any as 41 percent of th e M T O
and girls experienced a significant reduction in “risky behavior” families who had entered low-poverty neighborhoods subsequently
(drinking, taking drugs, engaging in sex, and so on). O n the other moved back to m ore disadvantaged neighborhoods. B ecause of
hand, research investigators found no evidence of an im pact on such extensive out-m igration, th ese M T O families accum ulated
em ploym ent rates and earnings, or of any m arked im provem ent on relatively little tim e in areas of low poverty, and correspondingly
th e educational or physical health outcom es of children and young they did not have an extended opportunity to experience life in
m en. T hese m ixed results have led some, including reporters, to low-poverty neighborhoods th at w ere racially integrated.60
question w hether there really are enduring negative effects of liv­ Moreover, nearly three-fourths of th e children in th e M T O
ing in poor, segregated neighborhoods. experim ent rem ained in th e sam e school district, often in the
However, although the research on th e M T O experim ent is sam e schools, at the tim e of th e interim evaluation. Stefanie D elu­
rigorous, serious problem s w ith the design of the experim ent ca’s com m ent on these findings, based on her interview s of M T O
lim it th e extent to w hich one can generalize about neighbor­ parents in Baltimore, reveals th at school choice was a low priority
hood effects. First of all, the treatm en t was weak. T h at is, the for some parents. “It is quite striking,” she states, “how little some
voucher was restricted for only one year, and th e restrictions were parents thought th at school m attered for learning, relative to w hat
based on neighborhood poverty, not racial com position. Indeed, the child contributed through h ard work and a good attitude.’”61
m any M T O movers relocated to neighborhoods th a t were not Furtherm ore, as pointed out by Quigley and Raphael, th e experi­
significantly different from the ones they h ad left. For example, m ent h ad not im proved accessibility to em ploym ent opportunities
th ree-fifth s of M T O fam ilies entered highly segregated black for M T O movers, because their new neighborhoods w ere no closer
neighborhoods. Such neighborhoods tend to be considerably less to areas of em ploym ent grow th.62 Finally, a n um ber of th e projects
advantaged th a n integrated areas. Sociologist R obert Sam pson th at had housed m any participants prior to their M T O reloca­
analyzed th e neighborhood attain m en t of all C hicago M T O fam i­ tion were torn down during th e tim e of th e experim ent, forcing
lies and found th at after approxim ately seven years, although the individuals in the control groups to also move and thus m aking it
voucher w inners resided in neighborhoods w ith poverty rates difficult to determ ine differences betw een voucher families and
som ew hat lower th a n in th e neighborhoods of control families, those w ithout vouchers.
b o th groups h ad clustered in segregated black neighborhoods R ather th an concluding from this research th a t neighbor­
th a t w ere still considerably poorer th an w hat an overwhelm ing hoods do no t m atter, it w ould be p ru d e n t to state sim ply th at
m ajority of A m ericans will ever experience (neighborhoods w ith although the M T O research raises questions ab out th e extent to
poverty rates of roughly 30 percent).59 w hich neighborhoods affect th e social outcom es of ch ildren and
O ne of th e m ajor differences betw een G autreaux and M T O adults, it certainly does n o t resolve th ese questions. T he M TO
was th at m any G autreaux families w ith vouchers moved to w hite is b est view ed as a policy experim ent ra th e r th an a m easure of
suburban areas th at w ere significantly less impoverished than their social processes. W e learn a lot from th e M T O regarding how
previous neighborhoods. In addition, at the tim e of the experi­ helpful it w ould be to offer ghetto residents housing vouchers
52 MORE THAN JU ST RACE T he Forces Shaping C oncentrated Poverty 53

w ith restricted use based on neighborhood poverty for one year. who lived in the poorest neighborhoods in the 1970s continue
W h a t th e M T O tells us little about is the effect of neighbor­ to live in such neighborhoods today. Sharkey suggests, therefore,
hoods on th e developm ent of children and families. th at th e focus of the research on neighborhood effects m ight be
I th in k th at overall quantitative studies generate mixed or shifted to an exam ination of how th e effect of living in poor neigh­
w eak findings about the effects of living in poor, segregated borhoods over two or m ore generations differs from the effect of
neighborhoods because of crude or inadequate m easures to short-term residence in such neighborhoods. T his brings us back
cap tu re neighborhood effects. If a random experim ent or even to another shortcom ing of th e M T O experim ent. Sharkey states
a non-experim ental study could be generated that w ould allow the following:
researchers to capture the im pact of a range of factors dis­
tinguishing different neighborhoods, including identifying factors Th e difficulty w ith in terp retin g th e results from th e M T O as esti­
th at are cum ulative over time, there would be significantly dif­ m ates of “neighborhood effects” lies in th e conceptualization of a
feren t findings on the im pact of living in inner-city ghetto move to a n ew neighborhood as a p o in t-in -tim e “tre a tm e n t.” This
neighborhoods. Allow m e to elaborate briefly. perspective ignores th e possibility th a t th e social environm ents
In an im pressive study th at analyzes data from the Panel Study surrounding fam ilies over generations have any lagged or cu m u ­
of Incom e D ynam ics (PSID), a national longitudinal survey, w ith lative in flu en ce on fam ily m em bers, and it ignores th e com plex
m ethods designed to m easure intergenerational econom ic m obil­ pathw ays by w hich this in flu en ce m ay occur. For in stan ce, the
ity, P atrick Sharkey found th a t “m ore th a n 70% of black children neighborhood m ay have an in flu en ce on an individual’s ed u c a­
who are raised in the poorest quarter of A m erican neighborhoods tional attain m en t in one generation, in tu rn influencing th e indi­
will continue to live in the poorest quarter of neighborhoods as vidual’s o ccupational status and incom e as an adult, th e quality
adults.”63 H e also found th at since the 1970s, a m ajority of black of th e hom e en vironm ent in w h ich th a t individual raises a child,
fam ilies have resided in the poorest quarter of neighborhoods in and th e developm ental trajectory of th a t child. T h ese indirect
consecutive generations, com pared to only 7 percent of w hite fam i­ pathw ays are obscu red in observational studies th a t control for
lies. T hus, he concludes th at the disadvantages of living in poor, a set of covariates su ch as ed u catio n or th e quality of th e hom e
black neighborhoods, like the advantages of living in affluent, environm ent, an d th ey are im possible to assess in experim ental
w hite neighborhoods, are in large m easure inherited. approaches su ch as M T O .65
Accordingly, this persistence of neighborhood inequality raises
serious questions about studies on neighborhood effects. M any W e should also consider another pathbreaking study th at
of th ese studies substantially underestim ate th e racial inequality Sharkey coauthored w ith senior investigator R obert Sam pson and
in neighborhood environm ents because they use a single-point- another colleague, Steven Raudenbush, th at exam ined th e durable
in-tim e, or a single-generation, m easure of neighborhood poverty effects of concentrated poverty on black children’s verbal ability.66
or incom e.64 W hereas living in the m ost im poverished neighbor­ T hey studied a representative sam ple of 750 A frican A m erican
hoods is a tem porary state for w hite families, m ost black families children, ages six to twelve, who were growing up in th e city of
54 MORE THAN J E S T RAGE The Forces Shaping C oncentrated Poverty 55

Chicago in 1995, and followed them anyw here they moved in the their early years in a disadvantaged neighborhood would be quite
U nited States for up to seven years. T he children were given a m isleading, they point out, because it does not take into account
reading exam ination and vocabulary test at th ree different periods. th e significant lagged effect of living in neighborhoods of concen­
T he study shows “th at residing in a severely disadvantaged neigh­ trated disadvantage— effects th at linger even after environm ental
borhood cum ulatively im pedes the developm ent of academ ically conditions improve. Accordingly, they rem arked, “It follows th at
relevant verbal ability in children”— so m uch so th at the effects residential mobility program s for those who grow up in poverty do
linger even if the children leave these neighborhoods.67 not necessarily provide th e appropriate test of th e causal effect of
T h e results of this study reveal (1) th at the neighborhood envi­ neighborhood social contexts.”72 in other words, the lack of evi­
ronm ent “is an im portant developmental context for trajectories of dence for neighborhood effects in th e M T O evaluation does not
verbal cognitive ability’’;68 (2) th at young A frican A m erican chil­ necessarily suggest th e absence of cum ulative or durable neighbor­
dren who had earlier lived in a severely disadvantaged neighbor­ hood effects.
hood had fallen behind their counterparts or peers who had not T he studies by Sharkey and by Sam pson and his colleagues b oth
resided previously in disadvantaged areas by up to 6 “IQ ” points— a suggest th at neighborhood effects are not solely structural. Among
m agnitude estim ated to be equivalent to “m issing a year or more of the effects of living in segregated neighborhoods over extended
schooling”;69 and (3) “th at the strongest effects appear several years periods is repeated exposure to cultural traits (including linguistic
after children live in areas of concentrated disadvantage.”70 This patterns, the focus of Sam pson’s study) th at em anate from or are
research raises im portant questions “about ways in w hich neighbor­ the products of racial exclusion— traits, such as poor verbal skills,
hoods may alter growth in verbal ability producing effects th at linger th at m ay im pede successful m aneuvering in th e larger society.
on even if a child leaves a severely disadvantaged neighborhood.”71 As Sharkey points out, “w hen w e consider th at th e vast m ajor­
Sampson, Sharkey, and R audenbush argue th at if researchers were ity of black families living in A m erica’s poorest neighborhoods
trying to determ ine the extent to which neighborhoods affect chil­ com e from families th at have lived in sim ilar environm ents for
dren’s verbal ability by random ly providing housing vouchers to generations . . . continuity of th e neighborhood environm ent, in
black children who live and grew up in inner-city ghetto neighbor­ addition to continuity of individual econom ic status, may be esp e­
hoods and who took a test m easuring verbal ability before they cially relevant to the study of cultural patterns and social norm s
moved, and th en com pared the results of the sam e test a few years am ong disadvantaged populations.”73
later after the children had resided in better neighborhoods, the U nfortunately, very little research has focused on th ese cu m u ­
conclusion would very likely be that there are no neighborhood lative cultural experiences, and it is som etim es difficult to separate
effects. W hy 3 Because there would be no difference in verbal abil­ cum ulative cultural experiences from cum ulative psychological
ity linked to m ovem ent to a better neighborhood, since verbal abili­ experiences. Take, for example, th e repeated experiences of dis­
ties would have already been formed. crim ination and disrespect th at a lot of blacks have in common. As
T h e notion th at the children’s verbal ability was not affected by University of W isconsin sociologist E rik O lin W right points out,
 56 MORE THAN JH S T RACE The Forces Shaping C oncentrated Poverty 57

if th ese experiences are system atic over an extended tim e period,

they can generate com m on psychological states th at may be erro­ Structure versus Culture
neously in terp reted as norm s by social investigators because they
seem to regulate patterns of behavior.74 Resignation as a response In addition to m aking sure th a t th e stru ctu ral effects of living
to repeated experiences w ith discrim ination and disrespect is one in poor neighborhoods are not dism issed or treated lightly, it is
good example. P arents in segregated com m unities w ho have had im portant to be clear th at stru ctu ral factors are likely to play a far
such experiences may transm it to children, through the process greater role th a n cultural factors in bringing about rapid neighbor­
of socialization, a set of beliefs about w hat to expect from life and hood change. Persuasive stru ctu ral evidence for this argum ent is
how one should respond to life circum stances. In other words, provided in two studies by University of Texas social scientist Paul
children m ay be taught norm s of resignation— they observe the Jargowsky. First, in Poverty and Place, an im portant book p u b ­
behavior of adults an d learn the “appropriate” action or response in lished by th e Russell Sage F oundation in 1997, Jargowsky reveals
different situations independently of their own direct experiences. th at in m etropolitan areas around th e country, changes in eco­
In th e process, children m ay acquire a disposition to interpret the nom ic activity w ere related to b o th rapid increases and decreases
way th e world works th a t reflects a strong sense th at other m em ­ in neighborhood poverty. Econom ic boom s sharply decreased
bers of society disrespect them because they are black. ghetto poverty in the Southw est in th e 1970s and in th e N o rth east
T he im pact of chronic econom ic subordination and displays in the 1980s. A rise in th e overall m ean incom e resulted in sharp
of disresp ect on people’s psychological dispositions and em otional declines in ghetto poverty concentration am ong blacks.
states m ay dep end partly on the cultural resources they have to As Jargowsky correctly observes, “a self-sustaining neighbor­
interp ret w hat has h ap p en ed to them , such as a cultural fram ing hood culture implies th at levels of neighborhood poverty would
designed to fend off insults th at prom otes strong feelings of racial respond slowly, if at all, to increased econom ic opportunity.”76
p ride w ithin th e community. Over time, “the shared psychologi­ However, this assum ption is u n d erm ined not only in his book
cal dispositions can becom e crystallized in cultural products and Poverty and Place. A later report th at Jargowsky prepared for th e
practices.”75 Brookings Institution revealed th at th e n um ber of people residing
T hus, in addition to structural influences, exposure to different in high-poverty neighborhoods decreased by 24 percent, or 2.5
cultural influences in th e neighborhood environm ent over tim e m illion people, from 1990 to 2000 because of th e econom ic boom,
m ust be taken into account if one is to really appreciate and particularly in the last h alf of th e 1990s. Moreover, th e num ber
explain th e divergent social outcom es of hum an groups. But, to of such neighborhoods around th e country— th e study defined
repeat, in delivering this m essage we m ust m ake sure th a t the them as census tracts w ith at least 40 percent of residents below
pow erful influence of structural factors does not recede into the the poverty level— declined by m ore th an a quarter.77
background. In 1990 alm ost a third of all A m erican blacks lived in such
neighborhoods; the 2000 figure was 19 percent. Yet despite this
58 MORE THAN JU S T RAGE The Forces Shaping C oncentrated Poverty 59

significant im provem ent, A frican A m ericans still have the highest declined by 29 percent (from 2.7 m illion people to 1.9 million),
rates of concentrated poverty of all groups in the U nited States. and the num ber of blacks decreased by 36 percent (from 4.8
In part, th e state of inner-city ghettos is a legacy of historic racial million to 3.1 m illion). Latinos were th e major exception to this
subjugation. C oncentrated-poverty neighborhoods are th e m ost p attern because their num bers in high-poverty areas increased
visible and disturbing displays of racial and incom e segregation. slightly during the 1990s, by 1.6 percent. However, this finding
A nd th e dram atic decline in concentrated poverty from 1990 to should be placed in th e context of Latino population growth: the
2 0 0 0 can b e explained in term s of culture. Rather, these shifts num ber of Latinos overall increased dram atically in. th e 1990s,
dem onstrate th at the fate of A frican A m ericans and other racial by 57.9 percent, com pared w ith 16.2 percent growth for A frican
groups is inextricably connected w ith changes across the m odern A m ericans and only 3.4 p ercen t for w hites.80 Particularly low-
economy. skilled im m igrants drove Latino population growth. For all races,
Jargowsky’s data bear this out. T he declines in concentrated the greatest im provem ents against poverty concentration were in
poverty in th e 1990s occurred not just in a few cities b u t across the the South and M idwest, and th e sm allest were in the N ortheast,
country. By contrast, Los Angeles and W ashington D C were two m irroring w ider economic tren d s.81
of th e few central cities th at experienced a rise in concentrated T hus, the notable reduction in the num ber of high-poverty
poverty during the 1990s. Jargowsky advances three argum ents neighborhoods and th e substantial decrease in the population
to account for th e divergent trend in Los Angeles: (1) the Rod­ of such neighborhoods may simply be blips of econom ic booms
ney King verdict in 1992 triggered a very destructive riot; (2) the rather th an perm anen t trends. U nem ploym ent and individual pov­
n um ber of Latinos im m igrating from M exico and other C entral erty rates have increased since 2000, and we have every reason
and South A m erican countries into high-poverty neighborhoods to assum e th at concentrated poverty rates are on the rise again
was significant; and (3) “the recession in the early 1990s was p ar­ as well, although com plete data on concentrated poverty for this
ticularly severe in Southern California, and the econom ic recovery period will becom e available only in th e 2010 census.
th ere was not as rapid as in other parts of C alifornia.”78 T h e earlier increase in concentrated poverty occurred during a
In W ashington D C the devastating fiscal crisis from the early period of rising incom e inequality for all A m ericans th at began in
to th e m id-1990s resulted in drastic reductions in public ser­ the early 1970s. This was a period of decline in inflation-adjusted
vices and an erosion of public confidence in th e district’s govern­ average incom es am ong th e poor and of growing economic seg­
m ent. T his developm ent contributed to “a rapid out-m igration of regation caused by th e exodus of m iddle-incom e families from
m oderate- and m iddle-incom e black families, particularly into inner cities. W h a t h ad b een m ixed-incom e neighborhoods w ere
suburban M aryland counties to the east of the central city. T he rapidly transform ed into areas of high poverty. Undoubtedly, if
poor were left b eh in d in econom ically isolated neighborhoods the robust economy of the latter 1990s could have been extended
w ith increasing poverty rates.”79 for several m ore years rath er th a n com ing to an abrupt halt in
V irtually all racial and ethnic groups recorded improvem ents, 2001, concentrated poverty in in n er cities w ould have declined
[h e n um ber of w hites living in high-poverty neighborhoods even more. H ere, once again, we see th e im portance and power of
 60 MORE THAN JU ST RACE The Forces Shaping C oncentrated Poverty 61

structural forces— in this case, im personal economic forces— on the effects of living in poor neighborhoods. T hese two im portant
significantly changing concentrated poverty. studies provide com pelling evidence for considering th e cum u­
lative and often durable effects of residing in poor, segregated
neighborhoods. T hey also provide direction for m uch-needed
research on th e cum ulative effects of living in poor, segregated
Conclusion neighborhoods. Some of th ese effects are obviously structural
(e.g., proximity to jobs and enrollm ent in low-quality schools), but
In this chapter I discussed a n um ber of structu ral forces th at have others are cultural, such as prolonged exposure to cultural traits
adversely affected inner-city black neighborhoods. T hese forces th at originate from or are th e products of racial exclusion (e.g.,
included political actions th a t were explicitly racial, those th at the developm ent of language skills and th e influence of norm s of
w ere at least p artly influenced by race, and those th at were osten­ resignation in response to repeated experiences of discrim ination
sibly nonracial (but nevertheless adversely affected black neigh­ an d disrespect).
borhoods), as well as im personal economic forces th at accelerated Finally, as show n in this chapter, if one attem pts to explain
neighborhood decline in th e in n er city and increased disparities rapid changes in social and econom ic outcom es, there is little evi­
in race and incom e betw een cities and suburbs. dence th at cultural forces carry th e pow er of stru ctu ral forces.
O n e of th e com bined effects of th ese factors was the em er­ W e n eed only consider th e im pact of th e econom ic boom on th e
gence of depopulated ghettos, especially in cities of th e M idw est reduction of concentrated racial poverty in th e 1990s, as discussed
and N ortheast. Federal transportation and highway policy, along in this chapter, for illustration of this point. A lthough cultural
w ith m ortgage-interest tax exemptions, facilitated th e exodus of forces play a role in inner-city outcom es, evidence suggests th at
b o th industries and nonpoor fam ilies from inner-city neighbor­ they are secondary to th e larger econom ic and political forces,
hoods. In tu rn , th e decline of industrial em ploym ent in th e inner both racial and nonracial, th a t move A m erican society. Indeed, as
city brought about th e end of th e Second G reat M igration from I will attem pt to dem onstrate in th e next two chapters, structural
th e South to th e N o rth around 1970. T h ese developm ents helped conditions provide th e context w ith in w hich cultural responses to
transform m any poor A frican A m erican neighborhoods, especially chronic econom ic and racial subordination are developed.
those in th e N o rth east and M idwest, from densely packed areas of
recently arrived m igrants from th e S outh to neighborhoods gradu­
ally abandoned by th e working and m iddle classes.
A nu m b er of studies have raised questions about th e real effects
of living in th ese ghetto neighborhoods, including th e widely
cited studies on th e M oving to O pportunity (M T O ) experim ent.
In this ch apter I highlighted tw o pathbreaking studies th a t raise
serious questions about th e extent to w hich th e M T O captured