Hispanics in Metropolitan America: New Realities and Old ......SO40CH23-Tienda ARI 27 June 2014...

SO40CH23-Tienda ARI 27 June 2014 13:33

Hispanics in MetropolitanAmerica: New Realitiesand Old DebatesMarta Tienda1,2,3 and Norma Fuentes4

1Office of Population Research, 2Woodrow Wilson School of International and PublicAffairs, 3Department of Sociology, 4Center for Migration and Development, PrincetonUniversity, Princeton, New Jersey 08544; email: [email protected],[email protected]

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014. 40:499–520

First published online as a Review in Advance onMay 14, 2014

The Annual Review of Sociology is online atsoc.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043315

Copyright c© 2014 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

Keywords

metropolitan trends, segregation, multiethnic places, immigration,geographic dispersal, Latino South, spatial mobility, new destinations

Abstract

Since 1980, Latinos have participated in an unprecedented geographicdispersal that altered the ethno-racial contours of metropolitan andnonmetropolitan areas throughout the nation. After summarizing re-cent trends in spatial distribution, we review scholarship about trendsin residential segregation, the rise of multiethnic neighborhoods, andresidential mobility. New trends, notably the emergence of hypersegre-gation and rising segregation levels in several places, call into questionearlier views about the inevitability of Hispanics’ spatial assimilation,as do studies that examine direct links between individual mobility andlocational attainment. The growing support for the tenets of the placestratification model suggests that Hispanic origin is becoming a racialmarker. Following a brief review of social and economic correlates ofHispanics’ residential makeover, we conclude by discussing opportuni-ties for future research, emphasizing the importance of dynamic assess-ments that consider the new contours of racialization in the context ofmultiethnic places.

499

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


INTRODUCTION

Hispanics reconfigured the ethnic and geo-graphic landscape of the United States duringthe latter quarter of the twentieth century. Rep-resenting less than 5% of the US population in1970 (Bean & Tienda 1987, table 3.1), the His-panic population surged over the next 40 yearsowing to mass migration from Latin Americaand high immigrant fertility (Ennis et al. 2011,Tienda & Mitchell 2006). For perspective, be-tween 1966 and 2006 the US population added100 million residents, reaching the 300 millionmilestone; Latinos accounted for 36% of thenet change (Pew Hisp. Cent. 2006). After sur-passing blacks as the largest minority at the turnof the twenty-first century, Hispanic popula-tion growth continued at a rapid clip, topping50 million by 2010 (Ennis et al. 2011, Matheret al. 2011).1 Concurrently, Latinos becamemore diverse by nationality, birthplace, gener-ation, and legal standing (Tienda & Mitchell2006).

Equally striking, since the late 1980sLatinos have participated in an unprecedentedgeographic scattering to new destinations inthe Deep South and across the heartland, wherethey often revived dwindling nonmetropoli-tan communities (Fischer & Tienda 2006,Kochhar et al. 2005, Lee et al. 2012, Lichter& Johnson 2009). Immigrants spearheadedLatinos’ geographic dispersal, but internalmigration of native-born Hispanics buttressedthe residential transformation (Hirschman &Massey 2008, Fischer & Tienda 2006, Singer2004, Suro & Singer 2002). These residentialshifts acquire social significance because theycoincided with black return migration to theSouth and growing immigrant streams fromAsia to US metropolitan areas (Berube et al.2010, Frey 2011, Tolnay 2003).

In what follows, we describe how Lati-nos transformed the US metropolitan land-

1There is some disagreement about the year in which His-panics surpassed blacks; the Bureau of the Census dates thecrossover around July 2001, but later analysts (e.g., Matheret al. 2011, table 2) propose an earlier date.

scape since 1970 and leverage comparisonswith African Americans, Asians, and non-Hispanic whites to address an overarchingtheme: Namely, what new insights about resi-dential patterns and geographic mobility can begarnered by studying Hispanics? Our review ofHispanics’ changing metropolitan profile sum-marizes what we know, identifies outstandingquestions, and in the final section, outlines di-rections for future research. Beyond alteringthe ethno-racial contours of urban, suburban,and rural areas, Latinos’ changing metropoli-tan imprints also have implications for the the-oretical frameworks and measures used to studyspatial integration in multiethnic settings andto portray the evolution of racial hierarchies inphysical space (Logan 2012, Marrow 2013).

To begin, we expand on the salient residen-tial trends since 1970, followed by a brief re-view of theoretical frameworks used to under-stand the significance of spatial arrangementsfor social integration. Many studies aboutLatinos’ changing geographic profiles focus onresidential segregation, which we elaborate insome detail, followed by a discussion of thesocioeconomic consequences of the new spa-tial arrangements. The conclusion emphasizesthe importance of undertaking dynamic assess-ments of residential change and examining whatthe growth of multiethnic places portends forprocesses of racialization.

First a note on terminology. We use theterms Hispanic and Latino interchangeably,although we acknowledge that when mem-bers of this group are offered a preference be-tween the two panethnic labels—Hispanic orLatino—they prefer the former by a ratio oftwo to one (Tienda & Mitchell 2006). Sec-ond, because we focus on the spatial rather thanthe cultural dimensions of social hierarchies,we use the terms assimilation and integrationinterchangeably.

HISPANIC METROPOLITANTRENDS: PARADOXES OF PLACE

Summarily stated, Latinos’ geographic profileis one of growing dispersion amid persisting

500 Tienda · Fuentes

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


regional concentration. Throughout the 1960sand 1970s, roughly three-fourths of Hispan-ics resided in five southwestern states, withadditional concentrations in southern Floridaand several cities along the Northeast corri-dor (Bean & Tienda 1987, table 5-1; Fischer &Tienda 2006). With three out of four Latinosresiding in the Southwest today, this broad re-gional profile remains intact (Ennis et al. 2011);however, persisting regional concentration be-lies enormous intraregional dispersal within theinterior West in states such as Utah and Nevadaas well as across a greater range of metropolitanand nonmetropolitan communities within thetraditional states of residence (Frey 2012b, Hallet al. 2011, Lichter & Johnson 2009, Singer2004). Beginning in the late 1980s and witheven greater momentum through the 1990s,Latinos began a massive regional makeover byscattering across the nation to places where fewhad previously settled (Fischer & Tienda 2006,Kochhar et al. 2005, Lloyd 2012).

Notwithstanding deep roots as agriculturalworkers, Latinos are more urbanized than ei-ther African Americans or non-Hispanic whitesand currently outnumber African Americans inover half of all US metropolitan areas (Frey2011). Already by 1970, more than 80% ofLatinos resided in metropolitan areas—mostlyin central cities (Bean & Tienda 1987). In1970, 55% of US Hispanics resided in just10 metropolitan areas compared with 45% in2010; Los Angeles and New York alone housedalmost one in three Latinos in 1970 comparedwith one in five today (Berube et al. 2010, p. 53;Motel & Patten 2012). Better job opportunities,lower housing costs, and safer communities areamong the primary factors undergirding the ge-ographic dispersal (Berube et al. 2010, p. 55;Fischer & Tienda 2006).

Latinos’ metropolitan scattering is evidentin the rank ordering of the top metro areas,which largely coincides with recent growthcenters such as Reno, Charlotte, and Atlanta.Since 2000, for example, Arizona’s Hispanicpopulation grew 46%, catapulting Phoenixinto the top 10 largest Hispanic metropolitanareas and displacing San Francisco from

eighth to tenth place (Motel & Patten 2012).Table 1, which shows the top 30 metropolitanareas by size in 2010, reveals enormous varia-tion in both the size of the Hispanic populationas well as the share that are foreign-born.Hispanics’ presence in metro areas beyond tra-ditional gateways reveals their residential shiftsaway from Southern California and Florida.Metro areas with sizeable Hispanic popula-tions are scattered across the United States,ranging from Nevada in the interior West toAtlanta in the South and Washington, DC, inthe mid-Atlantic region. Paralleling nationaltrends, the growth of Hispanics in many of thenew metro areas decelerated during the 2000s(Frey 2012b). In particular, the housing marketcollapse after 2007 appears to have triggeredsome retrenchment of Latinos away from newdestinations toward the traditional Hispanicmetro areas, notably Los Angeles, Chicago,New York, and Miami; however, after morethan two decades of putting down roots in newplaces, a major reversal of the metropolitandispersal is highly unlikely (Frey 2011).

Beyond size differences, which range fromjust under 350,000 to over 5 million, the top30 Latino metro areas vary appreciably inpopulation composition, which has implica-tions for segregation levels. Three metro areasalong the Texas-Mexico border—McAllen, ElPaso, and Brownsville—are over 80% Hispanic(Mexican), yet less than one-third of residentsare foreign-born. This contrasts with Arizona’sand California’s border metros—Tucson andSan Diego—where Hispanics represent aboutone in three residents. These metro areasappear to serve as immigrant pathways to otherplaces. Miami and Fort Lauderdale in Florida,along with Atlanta, Georgia, and Washington,DC, also have become prominent immigrantgateways for Hispanics since 1990 (Singer2004, Suro & Singer 2002). With some notableexceptions (e.g., Las Vegas), home ownershiprates tend to vary inversely with the size ofthe foreign-born population. In cities withestablished third-generation Hispanic commu-nities, such as San Antonio, Albuquerque, andEl Paso, home ownership rates hover around

www.annualreviews.org • Hispanics in Metropolitan America 501

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Table 1 Selected characteristics of the top 30 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) by 2010 Hispanic population size (allpercentages are of the total MSA population)

MSAHispanic population

(in thousands)Hispanicshare (%)

Foreign-born(%)

Owns home(%) IDa

Los Angeles–Long Beach, CA 5,724 45 43 40 62.2New York–Northeastern, NJ 4,243 24 44 25 62.0Houston-Brazoria, TX 2,044 36 41 55 52.5Riverside–San Bernadino, CA 2,012 47 33 58 42.4Chicago, IL 1,934 21 40 55 56.3Dallas–Fort Worth, TX 1,746 28 40 52 50.3Miami-Hialeah, FLb 1,610 66 67 55 57.4Phoenix, AZ 1,136 30 32 51 49.3San Antonio, TX 1,090 55 18 58 46.1San Francisco–Oakland–Vallejo, CA 1,088 22 42 42 49.6San Diego, CA 1,000 32 37 40 49.6Washington, DC/MD/VA 774 14 56 49 48.3McAllen-Edinburg-Pharr-Mission, TX 707 91 31 68 39.2El Paso, TX 662 82 30 63 43.3Denver-Boulder, CO 596 23 29 46 48.8Las Vegas, NV 571 29 41 43 42.0Fresno, CA 552 51 32 44 46.5Orlando, FL 543 25 26 55 40.2Atlanta, GA 530 11 54 43 49.5Austin, TX 502 31 29 42 43.2San Jose, CA 482 27 37 40 47.6Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL 456 16 35 53 40.7Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood–PompanoBeach, FLb

442 25 52 61 57.4

Philadelphia, PA/NJc 420 8 25 43 55.1Bakersfield, CA 416 49 34 51 52.3Albuquerque, NM 411 47 16 64 36.4Boston, MA/NHd 403 10 42 26 59.6Sacramento, CA 375 19 27 47 38.9Brownsville–Harlingen–San Benito,TX

359 88 27 66 NA

Tucson, AZ 341 35 25 58 46.2

Sources: Adapted from Motel & Patten 2012, appendix table A-1; segregation indices from Frey 2012a.aThe index of dissimilarity (ID) is a measure of evenness that ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 indicates even distribution of groups and 100 indicatescomplete segregation.bFor combined Fort Lauderdale–Miami Metro Area.cA portion of the MSA for Philadelphia, PA, spills over into the neighboring state of New Jersey.dA portion of the MSA for Boston spills over into the neighboring state of New Hampshire.


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


60%. Except for New York and Los Angeles,residential segregation from whites is in themoderate range, with lower index of dissimi-larity (ID) values corresponding to metros withestablished third-generation communities.

Latinos’ spatial redistribution also involveda growing representation in new suburban andnonmetropolitan communities, many with lowlevels of ethnic heterogeneity (Lee et al. 2012,Lichter & Johnson 2009, Massey & Capoferro2008). Hispanic suburbanization, which waspart of a national trend in which blacks andAsians also participated, was especially brisk inthe new metropolitan destinations (Fischer &Tienda 2006, Lloyd 2012, Suro & Singer 2002).According to Berube and colleagues (2010,p. 61), “for the first time, more than half ofall racial and ethnic groups in large metro ar-eas reside in suburbs.” This population shiftspawned numerous studies that investigate res-idential segregation, housing, and immigrantreception beyond the central city, which we re-view below.

Following decades of nonmetropolitan de-population, Hispanic immigrants also have in-fused new life into many rural communitiesand small towns throughout the nation (Griffith2008, Lichter & Johnson 2009, Zuniga &Hernandez-Leon 2005). Although the share ofall Hispanics residing in nonmetropolitan areasfell from 11% to less than 8% between 1980 and2010 (Carr et al. 2012, table 1; Fischer & Tienda2006, table 1), Latinos—large majorities ofwhich are foreign-born—spearheaded the de-mographic replenishment of nonmetropolitanareas after 1990, nearly doubling their popula-tion share by 2006 from 26% to 45% (Lichter &Johnson 2009). As Hispanics replaced nativewhites, they visibly altered the ethnic makeupof rural America in a relatively short time.

Several aspects of Latinos’ metropolitanmakeover are relevant for appreciating its socialsignificance. First, Hispanics share urban spaceswith Asians and African Americans in a growingnumber of metropolitan areas. Currently theyoutnumber African Americans in over half ofall US metropolitan areas, including many inthe Deep South (Frey 2011). This novel devel-

opment, which has implications for the ethno-racial as well as socioeconomic contours ofphysical space, affords opportunities for under-standing how social boundaries are constructedin multiethnic settings (Fong & Shibuya 2005,Kim & White 2010, Lee et al. 2012, Logan &Zhang 2010). Specifically, the rise of multieth-nic cities and suburban places affords oppor-tunities to ferret out new insights about thesocial significance of Hispanics’ participationin the social and ethnic transformation of USmetropolitan areas and the racialization of His-panic ethnicity (Lloyd 2012, Tolnay 2003).

Second, although Hispanics’ geographicdispersal involved both native- and foreign-born residents, recent immigrants fueled thegrowth of new residential destinations inresponse to surging labor demand in food andconstruction industries (Donato & Bankston2008, Fischer & Tienda 2006, Flippen &Parrado 2012, Kandel & Parrado 2005, Zuniga& Hernandez-Leon 2005). Because many ofthe new immigrant gateways lack the socialinstitutions dedicated to cultural and structuralintegration of recent arrivals, immigration addsa layer of complexity to Hispanics’ geographicdispersal (Fischer & Tienda 2006; Marrow2011, 2013; Singer 2004). As immigrant laborflows evolved into family streams, schoolsand other social institutions were affectedby the new settlement patterns (Flippen &Parrado 2012, O’Neil & Tienda 2010). Thecontentious national debate about immigrationreform since 9/11 has drawn attention toLatinos’ geographic dispersal by spotlightingsocial tensions in communities with visibleforeign-born populations (Marrow 2013).

Third, the number and diversity of thenew Hispanic destinations complicate gener-alizations about social consequences, whichare simultaneously positive and negative forboth the people and the places involved(Hirschman & Massey 2008, Waters & Jimenez2005, Zuniga & Hernandez-Leon 2005). Forexample, the growing Latino presence in theSouth raises new integration concerns forbrown immigrants in a context marred by alegacy of slavery and overt exclusion of African


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Americans (Lichter 2013, Lloyd 2012, Marrow2013). Media focus on isolated incidents involv-ing undocumented immigrants, as occurred inHazelton, PA, and Farmingville, NY, for exam-ple, potentially thwarts integration prospectsof Latinos by blurring legal status boundariesamong the foreign-born (Amuedo-Doranteset al. 2013, Marczak et al. 2011).

Because economic opportunities and socialamenities are unequally distributed acrossspace, the significance of recent residentialtrends depends on whether they promote socialintegration and foster economic mobility orresult in new forms of race and class divisions.The answer, of course, depends not only onindividual and group advancement but also onthe broader macrostructural conditions andpublic institutions that define social and eco-nomic opportunities. That Latinos’ residentialdispersion evolved against a background ofrising income inequality, industrial restructur-ing, population aging, increasing unauthorizedimmigration, and political polarization also hasimplications for their integration prospects.This is evident from scholarship about residen-tial segregation, home ownership, labor marketintegration, and neighborhood transformationdiscussed below.

THEORETICAL ANDMETHODOLOGICALCONSIDERATIONS

As a dimension of stratification, location is apowerful indicator of social standing becauseemployment opportunities, resource amenities,school quality, and public safety are unequallydistributed across space (Fischer & Tienda2006, Massey & Denton 1993). Therefore,where people live portrays status and class in-equities and shapes the contours of social in-teraction. The extent to which residents aretied to places also reproduces ecologically dis-tributed advantages and disadvantages (Logan1978). Migration ostensibly permits residentsto overcome place-linked disadvantages andimprove life circumstances; however, in prac-tice institutional barriers, economic conditions,

and housing constraints also limit the realiza-tion of social mobility through geographic mo-bility (Logan 1978, Tolnay 2003).

Until recently, most studies of spatial inte-gration focused on residential segregation, of-ten inferring interaction patterns on the ba-sis of probabilistic rather than actual contact(Charles 2003, Logan 2012). Virtually all stud-ies about segregation draw on two complemen-tary theoretical perspectives—spatial assimila-tion and place stratification—although recentscholarship has expanded on these perspectivesin numerous ways. The former posits that statusdifferences (e.g., education, occupational sta-tus, and income) are responsible for observeddifferences in racial and ethnic group sortingacross neighborhoods that differ in amenitiesand opportunities. Thus, with status improve-ments, access to desirable neighborhoods rises,which presumably is realized via residential mo-bility. Building on the premise that residentialneighborhoods are ordered along a hierarchyof desirability (Logan 1978), the place stratifi-cation perspective claims that institutional bar-riers, such as discriminatory lending practices,zoning, and redlining, undermine the ability ofminority groups to translate their social statusinto desirable residential locations.

Tolnay (2003, p. 227) claims that the placestratification model cannot be falsified short ofminorities “living in better neighborhoods thanwhites and receiving returns on their humancapital that are neither less than nor greaterthan those enjoyed by whites.” Although he ac-knowledges that the formulation of weak andstrong versions of the place stratification modelincreased its value by reconciling locational im-provements with returns to status, Tolnay alsoclaims that the modifications simultaneously“weakened the model’s theoretical integrity andspecificity.” These issues are particularly ger-mane for understanding Hispanic residentialsegregation because their placement in the USracial hierarchy has been less clearly definedthan that of African Americans (except perhapsin South Texas and Southern California) andbecause the social significance of Hispanicity isitself being transformed through domestic and


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


international migration (Kim & White 2010,Nelson & Tienda 1985, Tienda & Mitchell2006).

Many sociological studies of residentialpatterns focus on neighborhood ethno-racialtransformation as social groups trade places insocial space (Fong & Shibuya 2005, Logan &Zhang 2010). The emergence of multiethnicneighborhoods led several researchers to ques-tion the utility of the ethnic invasion-successionframework formulated around the experienceof blacks and, in particular, the presumptionof inevitable, unidirectional transitions fromall-white to minority-dominant neighborhoods(Iceland et al. 2002). Denton & Massey (1991)showed that Hispanic neighborhoods are morelikely to experience succession than blackneighborhoods, but the evidence for Latinosis less consistent in part because of differencesin the experiences of native- and foreign-born Hispanics (Flippen & Parrado 2012,Morenoff & Tienda 1997).

Three specific conceptual issues are perti-nent for Hispanics. One is the relevance ofthe tipping point in multiethnic contexts andthe circumstances that lead to integration whenmultiple groups share social and physical space(Denton & Massey 1991, Fasenfest et al. 2004,Fong & Shibuya 2005, Lee et al. 2012, Lichter2013). Because places differ appreciably in theirethno-racial composition and segregation lev-els differ across groups, it is unclear what eth-nic mixes, if any, optimize social and economicintegration. Although some recent studies sug-gest that Hispanics facilitate lower racial seg-regation by serving as a buffer between blacksand whites, empirical support for this claim ismixed (Fong & Shibuya 2005, Logan & Zhang2010).

Population diversification within andamong metropolitan areas also bears on themeasurement of spatial distance, which withfew exceptions (e.g., Fischer et al. 2004,Iceland 2004, Iceland et al. 2002, Timberlake& Iceland 2007) typically assesses spatial rela-tions using binary comparisons: black-white,Hispanic-white, Asian-white. The ID is themost frequently used measure of segregation

both because it is easy to calculate and interpretand because it captures about the same amountof unique information as competing choiceswhen tested empirically (Massey & Denton1988); however, the exposure index is a closesecond to the ID (Fischer & Tienda 2006).Multigroup segregation measures such as theentropy index are better suited for measuringspatial separation in diverse places becausethey take into account the presence of severalgroups simultaneously, yet relatively fewstudies use them.

Massey & Denton (1988) clarified con-ceptually the measurement of segregation byidentifying and empirically verifying five coredimensions: evenness, clustering, exposure,centralization, and concentration. A subsequentanalysis based on a larger set of metropolitanareas affirmed the multidimensional characterof residential segregation with qualificationsbecause the measures of concentration andclustering are less robust (Massey et al. 1996).An important spin-off from this work was theidentification of hypersegregation, a conditionof maximum social exclusion resulting whengroups are highly segregated along severaldimensions. African Americans qualified ashypersegregated in 16 metropolitan areas in1980 and 29 in 1990, but since 2000 Hispanicsreached the hypersegregation threshold in LosAngeles and New York City—two metropoli-tan areas that together hosted almost one infive Latinos in 2010 (Wilkes & Iceland 2004).

In what follows we illustrate how the studyof metropolitan growth and diversificationthrough the lens of the Hispanic experiencesheds light on these theoretical and measure-ment considerations. We also examine the con-tours of urban inequality more generally.

HISPANIC RESIDENTIALSEGREGATION

Research about residential segregation hasmushroomed since the late 1970s, due partly tothe growing availability of data in digital form,partly to methodological advances, and partlyto new developments in the spatial distribution


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


of social groups. Prior to 1980, when the USCensus Bureau added a Spanish origin ques-tion to the 100% enumeration schedule, therewas no single indicator to identify persons ofSpanish origin; therefore, most studies aboutthe Spanish origin population were regionallybased and focused on specific groups (Bean &Tienda 1987).

Paralleling Hispanics’ growing spatial im-print since 1980, scholarship about the di-mensions, causes, and consequences of theirresidential segregation increased. To organizeour review of the dimensions and correlatesof segregation and impose some coherence tothe vast array of findings, we distinguish be-tween studies conducted within the ecologi-cal tradition—including paths of neighborhoodtransformation—and research that directly ex-amines how social and residential mobility arerelated.

Ecological Approaches

Even before Latinos were enumerated as a na-tional population using a common identifier,Massey (1979a,b) pioneered the modern studyof Hispanic residential segregation at a na-tional level by piecing together various Spanish-origin indicators available in 1970—Spanishlanguage, Spanish surname, Puerto Rican birthor parentage—to distinguish Hispanics fromwhites and blacks in the 29 largest urbanizedareas. Invoking ecological theory, he postulatedthat status gains typically associated with im-migrant assimilation manifest as lower levels ofresidential separation from whites.

Two core findings from this early workcontinue to inspire contemporary scholarship.First, Massey (1979a) showed that, comparedwith blacks, in 1970 the Spanish-language pop-ulation was far less segregated from whites, thatHispanic segregation levels were lower in sub-urbs than in central cities, and that the foreignstock population (first and second generationscombined) was more segregated from whitesthan were third- and higher generation His-panics. Second, Massey (1979b) produced earlysupport for the spatial assimilation model by

demonstrating an inverse association betweenHispanic-white segregation levels and two sta-tus markers: education and family income. Us-ing 1980 data, an expanded number of metroareas, and comparisons with other groups,Denton & Massey (1988, p. 807) not only reaf-firmed the veracity of Latinos’ spatial assimila-tion but also underscored the salience of racialdivisions that distinguished them from AfricanAmericans: “[E]ven among Hispanics with 0–4 years of education, segregation is lower thanamong blacks with a college education.”

Puerto Ricans stood as a notable and initiallypuzzling exception to the predictions of the spa-tial assimilation model for Hispanics (Denton& Massey 1988, Massey 1979b). Exploiting theAfrican American heritage of Caribbean His-panics, Denton & Massey (1989) analyzed seg-regation patterns of black and white Hispanicsacross 10 metro areas in 1970 and 1980. Basedon measures of evenness and exposure, they re-vealed that Caribbean Hispanics are highly seg-regated from Anglos and blacks, but segregatedto a much lower degree from white Hispan-ics. Using more recent data, Iceland & Nelson(2008) confirmed that black and white Hispan-ics exhibit low levels of segregation from eachother, and they also show that black Hispanicsexperience greater separation from Anglos andless spatial distance from blacks than do whiteHispanics.

In sum, Massey’s early studies were im-portant in extending ecological theory toaccommodate Latinos, providing early bench-marks for appraising subsequent changes inHispanic segregation patterns and illustratinghow Latinos’ spatial arrangements differfrom those of African Americans. Moreover,by identifying the paradox of Puerto Ricansegregation, these forerunners also revealedthe complexity of Hispanicity as a panethniccategory (Kim & White 2010, Nelson &Tienda 1985, South et al. 2005). Subsequentstudies of Hispanic residential segregationdiffer in temporal and comparative scope,geographic coverage, and measurement, butmost are framed around the spatial assimilationand place stratification models (e.g., Iceland &


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Nelson 2008, Iceland & Wilkes 2006, Lichteret al. 2010, Massey et al. 2009, Timberlake &Iceland 2007). (Creation of the NeighborhoodChange Database with standardized censustract boundaries was particularly valuable forpromoting temporal, comparative studies.) Un-derstanding of Hispanic residential segregationwas further advanced through comparisonswith Asian and African American populations(Denton & Massey 1988, Fischer & Tienda2006, Iceland 2004, Massey & Denton 1987,Rugh & Massey 2013), expansions in the num-ber of metropolitan areas examined (Fischer& Tienda 2006, Fischer et al. 2004, Icelandet al. 2002), analyses of suburban areas andnonmetropolitan places (Alba & Logan 1993;Lichter et al. 2007, 2010), comparisons be-tween high- and low-status Hispanics (Iceland& Wilkes 2006), and use of multigroup entropymeasures (Fischer & Tienda 2006, Fischeret al. 2004, Timberlake & Iceland 2007).

Until 2000, the number of metropolitan ar-eas analyzed was limited to a few with suffi-cient numbers of Hispanics and Asians for reli-able analyses (Denton & Massey 1988, Massey& Denton 1987), but later studies expandedthe number of places compared (Fischer &Tienda 2006, Fischer et al. 2004, Iceland et al.2002, Rugh & Massey 2013). Virtually all stud-ies confirm that Hispanics are less segregatedfrom whites than African Americans, and mostcorroborate the premises of spatial assimila-tion. Nevertheless, there is appreciable tempo-ral, geographic, and racial variation in the con-tours of Latinos’ spatial inequality (Frey 2011,Iceland et al. 2002, Lichter et al. 2010, Massey& Denton 1987).

For example, Fischer & Tienda (2006)show that residential segregation increasedin new destinations, but they find no clearassociation between demographic growth andresidential segregation. Fischer and colleagues(2004) partly clarify this puzzle by showing thatunlike blacks, whose average segregation levelshave declined over time, Hispanic segregationlevels remained steady due to offsetting trends:a drop in neighborhood segregation withinplaces coupled with a rise in segregation be-

tween regions, metro areas, and places. Rugh& Massey (2013) provide additional insightinto the underlying mechanisms. Analyzingsegregation trends for 287 metropolitan areasfrom 1970 to 2010, they show that Hispanicresidential dissimilarity increased modestlywhile Hispanic isolation rose appreciablyowing to rapid population growth. (By con-struction, the isolation index is more sensitiveto demographic growth than is the ID.)

The rise in Hispanic residential segrega-tion warrants further study because its grow-ing complexity in multiethnic contexts calls intoquestion the veracity of the spatial assimila-tion model. Iceland and associates (2002) showthat three dimensions of Hispanic-white seg-regation rose during the 1980s and 1990s—evenness, isolation, and clustering; neverthe-less, Hispanic segregation remained lower thanthat of blacks on all three dimensions. Theemergence of Hispanic hypersegregation inLos Angeles is a particularly notable develop-ment (Rugh & Massey 2013, Wilkes & Iceland2004) that may signal growing salience ofplace stratification for Hispanics in the future(Lichter et al. 2010, Pais et al. 2012). Denton& Massey (1988) claim that residential isola-tion is produced in urban areas when minor-ity populations constitute a large share of anurban population that is unevenly distributedspatially.

High immigration levels also changed thecontours of Latinos’ residential segregation.Massey & Denton (1987) show that between1970 and 1980, Hispanic residential segrega-tion rose in metro areas where large numbersof immigrants settled and that spatial separa-tion from whites was lower among more ac-culturated and higher-status Latinos. Fischer &Tienda (2006) also find evidence of resegrega-tion in places with high immigration during the1980s and 1990s. Iceland & Wilkes (2006) cor-roborate the spatial assimilation model with ev-idence that in both 1990 and 2000, high-statusHispanics were less segregated from whitesthan were lower-status Hispanics.

Using four different measures of spatial dis-tance and growth curves to understand trends


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Table 2 Index of dissimilarity (ID)a for the top 10 most segregated metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) with populationsgreater than 500,000: Hispanics, 1990–2010

Rank 1990 2000 2010MSA ID MSA ID MSA ID

1 Hartford, CT 66.3 New York, NY 65.6 Springfield, MA 63.42 New York, NY 66.2 Providence, RI 64.5 Los Angeles, CA 62.23 Lancaster, PA 64.9 Springfield, MA 64.1 New York, NY 62.04 Springfield, MA 64.3 Hartford, CT 63.4 Providence, RI 60.15 Chicago, IL 61.4 Boston, MA 62.5 Boston, MA 59.66 Philadelphia, PA 60.9 Los Angeles, CA 62.5 Bridgeport, CT 59.27 Los Angeles, CA 60.3 Lancaster, PA 61.9 Hartford, CT 58.48 Bridgeport, CT 60.3 Bridgeport, CT 61.5 Miami, FL 57.49 Boston, MA 59.3 Chicago, IL 60.7 Milwaukee, WI 57.010 Cleveland, OH 58.3 Allentown, PA 60.0 Chicago, IL 56.3

Source: Frey 2012a.aThe ID is a measure of evenness that ranges from 0 to 100 where 0 indicates even distribution of groups and 100 indicates complete segregation.

in residential inequality over a 30-year period,Timberlake & Iceland (2007) detected morenuanced patterns of convergence and diver-gence in segregation levels than previously re-vealed using binary comparisons. Specifically,using the multigroup entropy index, they showthat residential segregation fell for all groupsbetween 1970 and 2000. Based on evidence thatblacks and Hispanics are able to convert statusimprovements into higher neighborhood qual-ity even if they are less successful at closing spa-tial gaps, they infer spatial assimilation. Becausesome trends for Latinos diverge from predic-tions of the spatial assimilation model, however,Timberlake & Iceland (2007) caution that con-tinued increases in Latinos’ residential segre-gation levels could thwart their socioeconomicintegration.

Table 2 provides some insight about theevolution of Hispanic segregation over the pasttwo decades as reflected by the ID. With IDvalues approaching or in excess of 60, virtuallyall of the listed metro areas qualify as highlysegregated in 1990 and 2000 compared withapproximately half in 2010. Seven metro areasremain in the top most segregated throughoutthe period. Temporal comparisons also revealthe reach of the dispersal and its role in accen-tuating Hispanic-white spatial divisions in new

metropolitan areas. Between 1990 and 2000,Allentown and Providence replaced Philadel-phia and Cleveland among the 10 most segre-gated metropolitan areas; by 2010, Miami andMilwaukee replaced Lancaster and Allentownamong the 10 most segregated metro areas.

Hispanics’ geographic dispersal redoubledinterest in new Hispanic destinations, includingsuburbs where many new immigrants settled(Clark & Blue 2004; Frey 2011; Lichter et al.2007, 2010). New Hispanic destinations are ofparticular interest because of the number, size,and geographic location of impacted places; therole of immigration in population growth anddiversification; and the variable size and racialcomposition of their native host populations(Fischer & Tienda 2006). Clark & Blue (2004)are sanguine about the potential for status gainsto foster residential integration in the majorimmigrant gateways, but their optimism aboutlong-term prospects for reducing Hispanic spa-tial segregation seems unwarranted for two rea-sons. First, two of the five metropolitan areasthey study became hypersegregated, which runscounter to their optimistic assessment. Second,descriptive comparisons between suburbs andcentral cities do not constitute compelling em-pirical evidence from which to draw inferencesabout future trends in residential segregation.


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


As many studies show, suburbanization does notde facto constitute spatial integration (Lichter2013, Lichter et al. 2010).

Lichter and colleagues (2007, 2010) aremore justified in drawing optimistic conclu-sions about the spatial integration prospects ofHispanics because they compare metropolitanand nonmetropolitan areas, use more granularecological units, and examine temporal vari-ation. Their consideration of rural areas andsmall towns is an important extension of res-idential integration research. They show that“levels and changes in recent patterns in ruralracial segregation are remarkably similar to pat-terns observed in larger metropolitan places”(Lichter et al. 2007, p. 577). More recentevidence supporting the place stratificationmodel is less sanguine about spatial integrationprospects, however (Lichter et al. 2010). In ad-dition to challenging implicit assumptions thatsuburbanization implies spatial mobility, highsegregation levels in new Hispanic destinationsraise questions about whether these new resi-dential divisions are temporary or will becomean enduring feature of the residential landscape.Moreover, given the number of places andpeople involved, evidence that higher incomesdo not guarantee spatial integration in newdestinations is a matter of some consequencefor the nation, but its significance partly hingeson the extent to which the observed concen-tration patterns reflect group preferences orresult from discrimination and involuntaryexclusion (Charles 2003, Clark 2009).

Paths of NeighborhoodTransformation

In an early study signaling the rise of multieth-nic neighborhoods, Denton & Massey (1991)asserted that all-white urban neighborhoodswere becoming rare in large metropolitan areas,yet they conceded that increases in the propor-tion of minorities tended to precipitate whiteflight. Morenoff & Tienda (1997) showed thatMexican immigration revitalized many poorneighborhoods during the 1980s, transformingthem into working-class neighborhoods rather

than underclass neighborhoods, as predictedby Wilson (1989). Their study illustrates thevalue of a longer temporal horizon—minimally20 but preferably 30 years—to appreciate howpopulation diversification transforms urbanlandscapes.

Fasenfest and associates (2004) find thatthe number of predominantly white neigh-borhoods fell by 30% during the 1990s inthe 10 largest metro areas; that mixed white-Hispanic or mixed white-Asian neighborhoodsbecame more prominent in formerly majority-white communities; and that within centralcities, mixed-race neighborhoods increased asall-white communities diminished. Given therise of multiethnic places, several recent stud-ies consider what the rise of multiethnic placesportends for the study of spatial inequality,neighborhood instability, and social integration(Crowder et al. 2012, Friedman 2008, Lee et al.2012, Vicino et al. 2011).

Friedman (2008) appropriately challengesimplicit assumptions that multiethnic neigh-borhoods are stably integrated and providestentative evidence that mixed neighborhoodswith lower shares of blacks are more stable thancomparably mixed neighborhoods with largerblack populations; however, she stops short ofsuggesting an optimal ethnic mix to achievestable integration. Based on actual residentialmobility patterns, Crowder et al. (2012) ana-lyze the residential decisions undergirding theemergence and transformation of multiethnicneighborhoods; their results reveal consider-able variation in the contours of integrationacross groups.

Questioning the utility of the invasion-succession model for understanding multi-ethnic paths of urban neighborhood change,Logan & Zhang (2010) empirically evaluateseveral versions of the buffer hypothesisto clarify whether and under what circum-stances the growth of Asian and Hispanicpopulations is associated with lower levels ofblack-white segregation. They identify twogeneral paths of neighborhood change, oneinvolving replacement of whites by Hispanicsand Asians and another leading to mixed


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


ethnic neighborhoods. Evidence that sizeableminority and immigrant populations do notprevent white flight points to the fragilityof multiethnic neighborhoods. This findingwarrants further research about the conditionsfostering stable and meaningful integrationacross racial and ethnic groups as well as moreexplicit specification of integration outcomes(Crowder & South 2008, Friedman 2008).

Locational Attainment andGeographic Mobility

A major limitation of spatial segregation studiesin the ecological tradition is their inability to as-sess directly the residential returns to social mo-bility and to specify whether and for which so-cial groups segregation is based on preferencesfor proximity to coethnics rather than on in-voluntary exclusion from more desirable places(Charles 2003, Clark 2009). Locational attain-ment models partly obviate problems of ecolog-ical inference endemic to studies of residentialsegregation by asking how status achievementsincrease the likelihood of residential moves andby estimating the residential exchange valueof individual traits. Unlike studies of individ-ual geographic mobility, locational attainmentstudies situate individuals in diverse neighbor-hood contexts.

Comparisons of movers and stayers betweencentral cities and suburbs are crude approxi-mations of locational attainment. For example,Clark (2007) shows that Hispanics who movefrom central cities to suburbs average higherincome than do stayers or movers within cen-tral cities; however, his evidence about residen-tial differences according to education levels isinconsistent with the tenets of the locationalattainment perspective. In the absence of infor-mation about whether the quality of Hispanicsuburban neighborhoods is comparable to thatof whites, Clark’s claim that geographic mobil-ity reduces racial divisions is premature. Fur-thermore, without comparisons between qual-ity of origin and destination neighborhoods, itis impossible to ascertain whether the movesimply residential convergence between groups.

To identify the circumstances that per-mit black, Hispanic, and Asian suburbanites tocomingle with whites, Alba & Logan (1993) ex-ecute a novel strategy that transforms aggregatecensus data into the functional equivalent of in-dividual records. Their findings that English-proficient, native-born Hispanics are less seg-regated from whites than foreign-born Latinoswho are not fluent in English lend support tothe tenets of spatial assimilation; however, ev-idence that Mexican origin and racial appear-ance are also associated with higher separa-tion from whites supports place stratification.Alba & Logan concede that the higher ten-dency of Mexicans to reside in coethnic com-munities may reflect individual preferences.Whether and how such preferences vary acrossmetropolitan areas is an empirical question war-ranting further investigation.

Geographic mobility studies overcome lim-itations of both locational attainment and eco-logical approaches by directly testing whetherhigher-status minorities are more likely thantheir lower-status counterparts to undertake aresidential move and, conditional on moving,whether the residential exchange value of socialstatus is uniform among demographic groups.Although associations between individual-levelsocial and geographic mobility overcome somelimitations of ecological correlations betweensocial attributes and residential outcomes,causal inferences based on movers are unwar-ranted unless analysts correct for selection biasresulting from systematic differences betweenmovers and nonmovers (Charles 2003).

Residential mobility studies based onindividual behavior generally buttress spatialassimilation, but they have also generatedsupport for place stratification. Several studiesby Kyle Crowder, Scott South, and theirvarious collaborators use individual mobilitydata supplemented with extensive place at-tributes to assess whether and for whom highsocial status provides access to better-qualityneighborhoods (Crowder et al. 2011, 2012;Crowder & South 2008; South et al. 2005;Pais et al. 2012). Using geo-coded data fromthe Panel Survey of Income Dynamics and the


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Latino National Political survey, South and as-sociates (2005) ask whether residential mobilityincreases Hispanics’ residential proximity towhites. In addition to correcting for potentialselection bias, the authors compare Mexicans,Puerto Ricans, and Cubans with Anglos. Likemany studies using ecological and locationalapproaches, they find that English proficiency,generational status, and educational attainmentenable moves that reduce spatial distance withwhites, and they also reaffirm that blackHispanics remain more segregated from whitesthan do their lighter-skinned counterparts.

Pais et al. (2012) respond to Tolnay’s (2003)challenge to specify the strong and weak ver-sions of place stratification by asking whetherresidentially mobile blacks and Hispanics accessmore advantaged neighborhoods, which theydefine based on income and percentage of whiteresidents. In support of spatial assimilation,they find that in many metropolitan areas, high-income minorities achieve neighborhood par-ity with highest-earning whites. Their resultsalso provide strong support for the weak ver-sion of the place stratification model inasmuchas high-income black and Hispanic movers aresuccessful in moving closer to whites; how-ever, compared with the lowest-income whites,the highest-income minority movers settle inneighborhoods with lower shares of white res-idents. That blacks and Hispanics are less suc-cessful than whites in gaining access to high-income neighborhoods buttresses the strongversion of place stratification.

Current Debates

A review of the residential segregation liter-ature provides ample evidence that, even asblack residential segregation and isolation re-main high in many places, black-white spatialintegration has increased steadily since 1960(Rugh & Massey 2013). A second generaliza-tion is that Hispanic-white residential segre-gation levels increased modestly, but isolationlevels rose appreciably. In fact, the two largestHispanic metropolitan areas became hyperseg-regated. Finally, Asian residential segregation

held steady at moderate levels even though spa-tial isolation increased (Rugh & Massey 2013).Despite agreement about these general trends,Glaeser & Vigdor (2012) sparked a controversyabout spatial integration trends by declaring the“end of the segregated century.”

Several demographers take issue with thisbold claim (e.g., Alba & Romalewski 2012,Lichter 2013, Rugh & Massey 2013). In ad-dition to systematically providing counter-evidence, critics of Glaser & Vigdor notethat assessments of segregation levels dependon the types of measures used—binary versusmultigroup—and the ecological level at whichsegregation is measured. For example, Alba& Romalewski (2012) assemble granular datafor New York to demonstrate that spatial dis-tance across multiple groups is a defining fea-ture of the largest metropolitan area. Fischerand associates’ (2004) decomposition of seg-regation by levels of geography also illustrateshow seemingly stable levels of residential seg-regation mask countervailing trends across re-gions, metro areas, places, and neighborhoods.

Furthermore, neither minority suburban-ization nor the growth of multiethnic neigh-borhoods can ensure cross-group comin-gling (Lichter et al. 2007, 2010; Massey &Denton 1993). For Hispanics—whose residen-tial patterns include the emergence of hyper-segregation amid broad geographic dispersal—both economic and demographic forces as yetuncertain will determine whether and whensegregation will end. Evidence that active ex-pressions of anti-Latino sentiment are associ-ated with levels of residential segregation andspatial isolation provide strong evidence thatthe segregated century is far from over (Rugh &Massey 2013).

RESIDENTIAL DISPERSAL ANDPARADOXES OF PLACE

The significance of Latinos’ changing resi-dential profile partly derives from the timingof the dispersal, the characteristics of thenewcomers, and the diverse contexts of re-ception they encountered. Notwithstanding


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


consensus that labor demand was the primaryfactor driving Hispanics’ residential dispersal(Fischer & Tienda 2006, Kandel & Parrado2005, Massey & Capoferro 2008), most ofthe job growth was in secondary labor marketsectors that attracted unskilled, foreign-bornworkers, including many lacking legal status(Donato & Bankston 2008, Donato et al. 2005,Goodwin-White 2012, Kandel & Parrado2005). Thus, in addition to the pace of growthand residential concentration of Hispanics,their legal status and skill disparities bear ontheir spatial imprints and terms of belonging(Flippen & Parrado 2012). The major questionposed by Latinos’ geographic scattering iswhether movement promotes integration inways that transcend coresidence with Anglos.We briefly illustrate the paradoxes of place forHispanics through an examination of housing,employment, and the terms of reception.

Housing

Home ownership is an important indicator ofsocial integration because it represents a sub-stantial personal investment and a commit-ment to remain in a community (Flippen 2012).Hispanic home ownership rates tracked be-low 50% before the housing crisis of 2008–2009 (Kochhar et al. 2009), with lower rates forimmigrants than natives. For the largest 100metro areas, Fischer & Tienda (2006) showa slight increase in Hispanic home ownershiprates between 1990 and 2000, with most of therise in established Hispanic metropolitan areas.Friedman et al. (2013) explain that lower own-ership rates among Hispanic immigrants fo-ment residential segregation from whites, andmore so among homeowners than renters. Lowhome ownership rates relegate Hispanic immi-grants to places with high crime rates, worseschools, and more limited amenities (Flippen2012). Fuentes (2007) reveals that New YorkCity landlords view undocumented Mexicanimmigrants as desirable tenants over other His-panics because they tolerate housing code in-fractions and are reliable for rent payments.

Several recent studies examine links betweenLatinos’ segregation patterns and home own-

ership. Flippen (2001, 2010) reveals that threesegregation measures—evenness, isolation, andclustering—are associated with higher rates ofHispanic home ownership. Her comparisonwith blacks is instructive because it implicatesethnic neighborhoods as a condition facilitat-ing Latinos’ access to the housing market andsuggests that Hispanic barrios may differ fromblack ghettos in ways that appear to promoteneighborhood stability. This claim is consis-tent with Morenoff & Tienda’s (1997) studyof Chicago neighborhood trajectories showingthat growth of Mexican-origin residents, mostof them foreign-born, appear to prevent the ex-pansion of underclass neighborhoods.

Flippen’s (2010) analysis of multiplemetropolitan areas confirmed that the sizeof a coethnic community, rather than itsgrowth, is the reason for the positive asso-ciation between residential segregation andHispanic home ownership. Presumably thepositive spillover effects of residence in a largecoethnic community reflect easier access toinformation, lower language barriers, andshared interest in neighborhood maintenance.The size of coethnic communities is alsoassociated with health status. Inagami et al.(2006) find that blacks and Latinos experiencelower all-cause mortality rates when they livein residentially homogeneous neighborhoods,with young Latino males and black seniorsreaping the largest benefit. Burgos & Rivera(2012), however, show protracted disabilityrates among Puerto Ricans living in conditionsof hypersegregation, lending support to theplace stratification model.

Although favorable housing conditionsattracted many Latinos to new destinations(Fischer & Tienda 2006, Kochhar et al.2009), Flippen (2010) cautions that the rate ofHispanic population growth does not neces-sarily increase home ownership rates, as priorresearch suggested. Rather, because group sizeappears to be the condition enabling Latinos’access to the housing market, ownershiprates will likely remain low in new residentialdestinations until a critical mass of own-groupmembers is stably integrated. Consistent with


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


differentials in ownership rates reported byFischer & Tienda (2006), Flippen (2010)notes that Hispanics registered higher homeownership rates in established Hispanic hubsrather than in new destination metros.

The ill-famed housing bubble of the early2000s, characterized by low interest ratesand loose lending guidelines, coincided withhigh levels of immigration and residentialdispersal—conditions that jointly renderedthousands of first-time Hispanic homebuyersvulnerable to predatory lending (Kuebler &Rugh 2013, Rugh & Massey 2010). Kochharand associates (2009) report that Hispanic homeownership rates peaked in 2007; consequently,Latinos were particularly hard-hit when themarket crashed because they had borrowedmore, on average, than whites with similar in-comes; because their ownership rates had in-creased faster and for a longer period than theoverall market; and because they had higher ex-posure to the subprime market. Rugh & Massey(2010) argue that residential segregation cre-ated a natural market for exploitation of immi-grants and minorities, which is evident in thesubstantially higher Hispanic foreclosure ratesin segregated urban housing markets after 2008.Simply stated, residential segregation racializedthe foreclosure crisis, disproportionately im-pacting places with large, established Hispanicpopulations.

Using home ownership and census datasupplemented with information about creditscores, income-to-price ratios, and ownerdemographic and economic characteristics,Kuebler & Rugh (2013) examine trends anddifferentials in ownership rates between whitesand Hispanic national origin groups from 2001to 2010. Consistent with the premises of placestratification, they show that black and PuertoRican ownership rates were adversely affectedby the housing market crash. In support ofthe spatial assimilation hypothesis, their re-sults also indicate that, compared with whites,home ownership rates of Mexicans, Cubans,and Asians did not erode after 2007. As theauthors caution, however, these inferences arebased on the hypothetical comparisons of “sta-

tistically comparable” groups; this inference re-quires equivalence in wealth and income—acondition their own statistical portrait showsdoes not exist.

Economic and Social Consequences

Contentious debates about immigrant reformlargely ignore the myriad contributions immi-grants make to the economy (Marrow 2011,Massey & Capoferro 2008). In addition to pro-viding needed personal services, Latinos’ res-idential dispersal helped revive local commu-nities by expanding revenue streams throughconsumption, business creation, and infusionof cash into housing markets (Massey &Capoferro 2008). For example, between 2000and 2010, Hispanics contributed $9 billion an-nually in North Carolina to the state’s economythrough taxes and purchases (Carr et al. 2012,pp. 42–43). By some estimates, Oregon’s econ-omy would lose between $400 and $656 mil-lion per year without its unauthorized Hispanicpopulation—a fact not overlooked by local po-litical and business elites who welcome hard-working immigrants with a blind eye to theirlegal status. Not all communities are so wel-coming, however.

Latinos’ residential dispersal will shapethe future contours of racial and ethnicstratification, but that social narrative is awork in progress. Children, in particular,will bear the brunt of discrimination directedtoward their parents, particularly if they areundocumented. Comparing two communitiesin North Carolina—one impacted by a surgein immigration and the other not—O’Neil& Tienda (2010) do not detect evidence ofwidespread hostility toward immigrants; how-ever, their analysis indicates that competitionfor educational resources lowers tolerance forimmigrants. Restricted access to educationalresources, assistance programs, and medicalcare is particularly detrimental for children’sdevelopment. Bean et al. (2013) estimate thatthe children of unauthorized Mexicans pay anachievement penalty of a full year or more.Given that fertility is the driver of Hispanic


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


population growth, these social costs willreverberate in myriad ways for years to come(Tienda & Mitchell 2006).

As Latin American immigration streamshave altered metropolitan labor markets in bothtraditional and new destinations (Hall et al.2011), researchers have uncovered latent andmanifest changes in intergroup relations. VonLockette & Johnson (2010) show that Hispanicmen have worse employment in more segre-gated labor markets over a 20-year period. At-tempting to reconcile the divergent conclusionsabout labor market displacement based on qual-itative and econometric studies, Rosenfeld &Tienda (1999) illustrate the importance of con-sidering occupational succession in areas im-pacted by industrial restructuring along withchanges in the ethno-racial composition of em-ployment. Their comparison of Los Angeles,Chicago, and Atlanta also underscores that theimpact of Latinos’ residential dispersal dependson the racial stratification system in place priorto the influx of new immigrants.

Based on an ethnographic study in NewYork City, Fuentes-Mayorga (2011) illustrateshow employers in small service establishmentsuse race, gender, and immigration status tostratify workers. Interviews with employers andworkers revealed that lighter-skinned Domini-cans and legal Mexican immigrants occupy“front-stage” functions, whereas black and un-documented immigrants are assigned “back-stage” tasks that limit exposure to clients. Herstudy demonstrates the importance of consider-ing how and where groups actually comingle tounderstand what Latinos’ dispersal portends forsocial integration, including the utility of His-panicity to represent racialized social bound-aries (Kim & White 2010).

Contexts of Reception

Even where Hispanics have offset nativepopulation losses and revitalized anemic localeconomies (Carr et al. 2012), their growingvisibility has not always resulted in unqualifiedacceptance, particularly in locales whereimmigration enforcement is usurped by state

and local governments (Marczak et al. 2011).Partly due to rapid growth and partly topersisting residential concentration, a morevisible Hispanic population is altering theorder of social relations among residents inplaces unaccustomed to culturally diversegroups (Flippen & Parrado 2012).

Although some receiving communities haveembraced newcomers (Marrow 2011, Winders2011), in others foreign-born Hispanicsface discrimination and outright rejection,as evident in the proliferation of state andlocal ordinances to enforce immigration laws(Amuedo-Dorantes et al. 2013). O’Neil (2011)finds that at both the county and municipallevels, increases in the size of the foreign-bornpopulation raise the risk of actually passinganti-immigrant legislation, but only in nontra-ditional gateway states or in localities that votedRepublican in 2004. Based on a comparisonof restrictive and nonrestrictive state and localimmigration policies, Marczak et al. (2011)find mixed economic consequences of stateand local ordinances, which they claim depressemployment but do not suppress establish-ment of new businesses. They acknowledge,however, that macroeconomic consequencesare likely larger, particularly after the financialcrisis.

Although researchers disagree aboutwhether employment verification is effectivein curtailing unauthorized immigrants’ accessto jobs and services (Almuedo-Dorantes et al.2013, Brown 2013), several scholars havesignaled more ominous social implications.Menjıvar (2013) maintains that the blurringof immigration and criminal laws will subjectHispanics to new forms of violence. Carr andassociates (2012) claim that legislation targetedagainst unauthorized immigrants spills overto all foreign-appearing residents, not onlycompromising Hispanics’ social acceptance inthe short run but also impairing integrationprospects for future generations (Bean et al.2013, Marrow 2011). The significance of thesedevelopments will likely depend on the futureof Latinos’ residential dispersal as well asthe prospects of comprehensive immigration


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


reform that includes a general amnestyprogram and pathways to citizenship.

CONCLUSIONS

Hispanics’ metropolitan profile has evolvedin profound ways that call into question ini-tial optimism that spatial assimilation is in-eluctable. Despite extensive empirical evidencefrom the residential segregation literature sup-porting the premises of spatial assimilation forLatinos, recent studies based on multigroupsegregation indicators and analyses of actualresidential mobility indicate either that inte-gration has slowed or that its contours havechanged in ways that increase the salience ofgroup membership. Unlike the trend for blacks,which shows secular declines in residential seg-regation, by several measures and in manyplaces Hispanics’ spatial separation from whiteshas increased. In hindsight, it appears that ini-tial claims about Latinos’ spatial assimilationwere premature because most were based oncross-sectional analyses that cannot portray so-cial processes; even stability over time can maskimprovements across neighborhoods and places(Fischer et al. 2004, Tolnay 2003).

If the Great Migration of African Americansfrom the Deep South to northern cities wasone of the most significant demographicevents during the mid-twentieth century, thegeographic dispersal of Latinos away fromtraditional immigrant gateways and regionalethnic hubs qualifies as an equally profoundoccurrence during the last quarter of thetwentieth century. Unlike blacks’ migration,which was primarily bound for northern in-dustrial towns, Latinos’ geographic scatteringis national in scope and involves a broad rangeof places, from global cities to rural boom-towns. Furthermore, it simultaneously involvesconcentration and resegregation as well asdispersal and, presumably, social integration.

That black return migration coincides withLatinization of the South affords a unique op-portunity to understand the evolution of USrace relations, and the racialization of Hispanic-ity in particular (Kim & White 2010, Lichter

2013, Lloyd 2012). Marrow (2011, p. 249)claims that Hispanic immigrants who settle inthe South experience exclusion and discrimina-tion based on both skin color and citizenship,which accentuates the social divisions that resultin Hispanics being defined as “undeserving out-siders.” Focusing on the integration challengesof immigrant and second-generation youth, forexample, she advocates for approaches that canreveal the workings of soft segregation, whichranges from academic tracking to tolerance forsegregated extracurricular activities.

The emergence of Hispanic hypersegrega-tion in Los Angeles and New York is a notewor-thy development not only because these are thetwo largest metro areas but also because theydiffer in ethnic composition, economic base,and immigration history. An in-depth com-parison of forces responsible for Hispanic hy-persegregation in these two metro areas couldyield valuable insights about the institutionalarrangements and social forces conducive togrowing spatial divisions between Latinos andAnglos in multiethnic settings. Although thenumber of black hypersegregated metro areashas declined, Atlanta and Mobile have qualifiedas hypersegregated since 2000; notably, bothwitnessed an influx of Hispanics in recent years.This development also invites research that in-vestigates how the coincidence of black returnmigration and Hispanic in-migration have al-tered racial divisions.

Several additional issues warrant furtherresearch attention in light of the trends re-viewed here. The most general concerns thevery meaning of integration under conditionsof high immigration and rapid populationdiversification (Charles 2003, Fasenfest et al.2004, Friedman 2008). Clarifying whether andhow spatial distances acquire social contentin multiethnic contexts may illuminate thesoftening or reification of group boundaries,including those between natives and immi-grants (Fischer et al. 2004, Kim & White 2010,Lee et al. 2012, Lichter 2013). Because physicaland social distances are not isomorphic (Logan2012), one concrete question warrantingfurther research is whether conceptualization


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


of multiethnic cities as melting pots is justified,as Frey (2011) suggests, or whether lowersegregation patterns are more entrenched.

A more nuanced understanding of the so-cial content of integration is important be-cause spatial mobility of Latinos in traditionalmetropolitan areas often has involved limitedintermingling between white and Hispanic res-idents (Fischer & Tienda 2006, Logan & Zhang2010). Residential proximity may be a neces-sary condition for intergroup comingling, butit is insufficient as revealed by studies of softsegregation within schools (Tienda & Mitchell2006). Exposure measures, for example, canbe improved upon by using GPS systems andmobile phones to expand static segregationmeasures based on residence to include actualmovements through physical space. Based ona pilot study, Palmer and collaborators (2013,p. 1123) make a compelling case about “the im-portance of moving beyond static, census-unitmeasurements when investigating the relation-ship between people and place.”

Furthermore, the growth of multiethnicplaces invites further investigations that clar-ify the necessary and sufficient conditions forachieving stable integration in communitieswitnessing population growth through inter-nal and international migration. If the growthof multiethnic places provides conditions forgreater intergroup contact, then it behooves re-

searchers to discern the conditions that producenew equilibriums among diverse places. Fur-thermore, suggestive evidence that Hispanicsreap health and home ownership benefits fromliving in ethnic neighborhoods also requires ad-ditional study to distinguish the salutary fromthe deleterious consequences of segregation.The presumption that all forms of segregationare involuntary and deleterious is questionable.

Finally, Hispanics’ retrenchment to tradi-tional metropolitan gateways in the aftermathof the Great Recession provides yet anotherresearch opportunity to reexamine how raceand place intersect to shape economic for-tunes. Hispanics incurred formidable economicpenalties as the construction and repair ser-vice jobs that lured them to nontraditional des-tinations collapsed (Berube et al. 2010, Frey2012b), subprime mortgages resulted in fore-closures (Kochhar et al. 2009, Rugh & Massey2010), and job competition rose. Frey (2012b,p. 15) claims that the unfavorable economicconditions during the late 2000s were responsi-ble for both the slowdown in immigration andLatinos’ return to traditional Hispanic hubs,which raises questions about the holding powerof the new residential configuration. This alsois an issue worth further investigation becauseit has implications for understanding the veryessence of integration and its persistence overtime.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings thatmight be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

LITERATURE CITED

Alba RD, Logan JR. 1993. Minority proximity to whites in suburbs: an individual-level analysis of segregation.Am. J. Sociol. 98(6):1388–427

Alba RD, Romalewski S. 2012. The End of Segregation? Hardly. New York: City Univ. New York Grad. Cent.,Cent. Urban Res.

Amuedo-Dorantes C, Puttitanun T, Martinez-Donate AP. 2013. How do tougher immigration measuresaffect unauthorized immigrants? Demography 50(3):1067–91

Bean FD, Bachmeier JD, Brown SK, Van Hook J, Leach MA. 2013. Unauthorized Mexican Migration and theSocioeconomic Integration of Mexican Americans. New York: Russell Sage Found.

Bean FD, Tienda M. 1987. The Hispanic Population of the United States. New York: Russell Sage Found.


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Berube A, Frey WH, Friedhoff A, Garr E, Istrate E, et al. 2010. State of Metropolitan America: On the FrontLines of Demographic Transformation. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Metrop. Policy Progr.

Brown HE. 2013. Race, legality, and the social policy consequences of anti-immigration mobilization. Am.Sociol. Rev. 78(2):290–314

Burgos G, Rivera F. 2012. Residential segregation, socioeconomic status, and disability: a multi-level study ofPuerto Ricans in the United States. Centro J. 24(2):14–46

Carr PJ, Lichter DT, Kefalas MJ. 2012. Can immigration save small-town America? Hispanic boomtownsand the uneasy path to renewal. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 641(1):38–57

Charles CZ. 2003. The dynamics of racial residential segregation. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 29:167–207Clark WAV. 2007. Race, class, and place: evaluating mobility outcomes for African Americans. Urban Aff.

Rev. 42(3):295–314Clark WAV. 2009. Changing residential preferences across income, education, and age: findings from the

multi-city study of urban inequality. Urban Aff. Rev. 44(3):334–55Clark WAV, Blue SA. 2004. Race, class, and segregation patterns in U.S. immigrant gateway cities. Urban Aff.

Rev. 39(6):667–88Crowder K, Hall M, Tolnay SE. 2011. Neighborhood immigration and native out-migration. Am. Sociol. Rev.

76(1):25–47Crowder K, Pais J, South SJ. 2012. Neighborhood diversity, metropolitan constraints, and household migra-

tion. Am. Sociol. Rev. 77(3):325–53Crowder K, South SJ. 2008. Spatial dynamics of white flight: the effects of local and extralocal racial conditions

on neighborhood out-migration. Am. Sociol. Rev. 73(5):792–812Denton NA, Massey DS. 1988. Residential segregation of blacks, Hispanics, and Asians by socioeconomic

status and generation. Soc. Sci. Q. 69:797–817Denton NA, Massey DS. 1989. Racial identity among Caribbean Hispanics: the effect of double minority

status on residential segregation. Am. Sociol. Rev. 54(5):790–808Denton NA, Massey DS. 1991. Patterns of neighborhood transition in a multiethnic world: U.S. metropolitan

areas, 1970–1980. Demography 28(1):41–63Donato KM, Bankston CL III. 2008. The origins of employer demand for immigrants in a new destination:

the salience of soft skills in a volatile economy. See Massey 2008, pp. 124–48Donato KM, Stainback M, Bankston CL III. 2005. The economic incorporation of Mexican immigrants in

Southern Louisiana: a tale of two cities. See Zuniga & Hernandez-Leon 2005, pp. 76–100Ennis SR, Rios-Vargas M, Albert NG. 2011. The Hispanic population: 2010. 2010 Census Briefs,

C2010BR-04, May, US Census Bur., Washington, DC. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf

Fasenfest D, Booza J, Metzger K. 2004. Living Together: A New Look at Racial and Ethnic Integration inMetropolitan Neighborhoods, 1990–2000. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Cent. Urban Metrop. Policy

Fischer CS, Stockmayer G, Stiles J, Hout M. 2004. Distinguishing the geographic levels and social dimensionsof U.S. metropolitan segregation, 1960–2000. Demography 41(1):37–59

Fischer MJ, Tienda M. 2006. Redrawing spatial color lines: Hispanic metropolitan dispersal, segregation, andeconomic opportunity. In Hispanics and the Future of America, ed. M Tienda, F Mitchell, pp. 100–37.Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press

Flippen CA. 2001. Residential segregation and minority home ownership. Soc. Sci. Res. 30(3):337–62Flippen CA. 2010. The spatial dynamics of stratification: metropolitan context, population redistribution, and

black and Hispanic homeownership. Demography 47(4):845–68Flippen CA. 2012. Immigration and housing: United States. In International Encyclopedia of Housing and Home,

ed. SJ Smith, pp. 16–21. San Diego: ElsevierFlippen CA, Parrado EA. 2012. Forging Hispanic communities in new destinations: a case study of Durham,

North Carolina. City Community 11(1):1–30Fong E, Shibuya K. 2005. Multiethnic cities in North America. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 31(1):285–304Frey WH. 2011. Melting pot cities and suburbs: racial and ethnic change in metro America in the 2000s. State

Metrop. Am. Ser. Pap., May, Brookings Inst., Washington, DC. http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/05/04-census-ethnicity-frey


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/05/04-census-ethnicity-frey

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/05/04-census-ethnicity-frey


Frey WH. 2012a. New racial segregation measures for large metropolitan areas: analysis of the 1990–2010decennial censuses. Rep., Univ. Mich. Popul. Stud. Cent. http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/census/segregation2010.html

Frey WH. 2012b. Population growth in metro America since 1980: putting the volatile 2000s in perspective.Res. Pap., March 20, Metrop. Policy Progr. Brookings, Washington, DC. http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/03/20-population-frey

Friedman S. 2008. Do declines in residential segregation mean stable neighborhood racial integration inmetropolitan America? A research note. Soc. Sci. Res. 37(3):920–33

Friedman S, Tsao H, Chen C. 2013. Housing tenure and residential segregation in metropolitan America.Demography 50(4):1477–98

Fuentes N. 2007. The immigrant experiences of Dominican and Mexican women in the 1990s: crossingclass, racial, and gender boundaries or temporary work spaces in New York City. In Constructing Borders/Crossing Boundaries: Race, Ethnicity, and Immigration, ed. CB Brettell, pp. 95–119. Lanham, MD: LexingtonBooks/Rowman & Littlefield

Fuentes-Mayorga N. 2011. Sorting Black and Brown Latino service workers in gentrifying New York neigh-borhoods. Lat. Stud. 9(1):106–25

Glaeser E, Vigdor J. 2012. The end of the segregated century: racial separation in America’s neighborhoods,1890–2010. Civic Rep. No. 66, Jan., Manhattan Inst. Policy Res., New York. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cr_66.pdf

Goodwin-White J. 2012. Emerging U.S. immigrant geographies: racial wages and migration selectivity. Soc.Sci. Q. 93(3):779–98

Griffith D. 2008. New Midwesterners, new Southerners: immigration experiences in four rural Americansettings. See Massey 2008, pp. 179–210

Hall M, Singer A, De Jong GF, Graefe DR. 2011. The geography of immigrant skills: educational profiles ofmetropolitan areas. State Metrop. Am. Ser. Pap., June 9, Brookings Inst., Washington, DC. http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/06/immigrants-singer

Hirschman C, Massey DS. 2008. Places and people: the new American mosaic. See Massey 2008, pp. 1–21Iceland J. 2004. Beyond Black and White—metropolitan residential segregation in multi-ethnic America. Soc.

Sci. Res. 33(2):248–71Iceland J, Nelson KA. 2008. Hispanic segregation in metropolitan America: exploring the multiple forms of

spatial assimilation. Am. Sociol. Rev. 73:741–65Iceland J, Weinberg DH, Steinmetz E. 2002. Racial and ethnic residential segregation in the United States: 1980–

2000. Census Spec. Rep. No. CENSR-3, US Census Bur., Washington, DCIceland J, Wilkes R. 2006. Does socioeconomic status matter? Race, class, and residential segregation. Soc.

Probl. 53(2):248–73Inagami S, Borrell LN, Wong MD, Fang J, Shapiro MF, Asch SM. 2006. Residential segregation and Latino,

black and white mortality in New York City. J. Urban Health: Bull. N. Y. Acad. Med. 83(3):406–20Kandel W, Parrado EA. 2005. Restructuring of the US meat processing industry and new Hispanic migrant

destinations. Popul. Dev. Rev. 31(3):447–71Kim AH, White MJ. 2010. Panethnicity, ethnic diversity, and residential segregation. Am. J. Sociol.

115(5):1558–96Kochhar R, Gonzalez-Barrera A, Dockterman D. 2009. Through boom and bust: minorities, immigrants

and homeownership. Rep., Pew Hisp. Cent., May 12, Washington, DC. http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/109.pdf

Kochhar R, Suro R, Tafoya S. 2005. The new Latino South: the context and consequences of rapid population growth.Rep., Pew Hisp. Cent., Washington, DC

Kuebler M, Rugh JS. 2013. New evidence on racial and ethnic disparities in homeownership in the UnitedStates from 2001 to 2010. Soc. Sci. Res. 42(5):1357–74

Lee BA, Iceland J, Sharp G. 2012. Racial and ethnic diversity goes local: Charting change in American com-munities over three decades. US2010 Proj. Rep., Sept., Russell Sage Found., New York. http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/Data/Report/report08292012.pdf

Lichter DT. 2013. Integration or fragmentation? Racial diversity and the American future. Demography50(2):359–91


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/census/segregation2010.html

http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/census/segregation2010.html

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/03/20-population-frey

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/03/20-population-frey

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cr_66.pdf

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cr_66.pdf

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/06/immigrants-singer

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/06/immigrants-singer

http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/109.pdf


http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/Data/Report/report08292012.pdf

http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/Data/Report/report08292012.pdf


Lichter DT, Johnson KM. 2009. Immigrant gateways and Hispanic migration to new destinations. Int. Migr.Rev. 43(3):496–518

Lichter DT, Parisi D, Grice SM, Taquino MC. 2007. National estimates of racial segregation in rural andsmall-town America. Demography 44(3):563–81

Lichter DT, Parisi D, Taquino MC, Grice SM. 2010. Residential segregation in new Hispanic destinations:cities, suburbs, and rural communities compared. Soc. Sci. Res. 39(2):215–30

Lloyd R. 2012. Urbanization and the southern United States. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 38(1):483–506Logan JR. 1978. Growth, politics, and the stratification of places. Am. J. Sociol. 84(2):404–16Logan JR. 2012. Making a place for space: spatial thinking in social science. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 38(1):507–24Logan JR, Zhang C. 2010. Global neighborhoods: new pathways to diversity and separation. Am. J. Sociol.

115(4):1069–109Marczak J, Cortina J, Hawley G, Andre R, Delano A, et al. 2011. The economic impact of immigrant-related

local ordinances. White Pap., Am. Soc., Counc. Am., New York. http://www.as-coa.org/sites/default/files/ASImmigrationWhitePaper.pdf

Marrow HB. 2011. New Destination Dreaming: Immigration, Race, and Legal Status in the Rural American South.Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press

Marrow HB. 2013. Assimilation in new destinations. Daedalus 142(3):107–22Massey DS. 1979a. Effects of socioeconomic factors on the residential segregation of blacks and Spanish

Americans in U.S. urbanized areas. Am. Sociol. Rev. 44(6):1015–22Massey DS. 1979b. Residential segregation of Spanish Americans in United States urbanized areas. Demography

16(4):553–63Massey DS, ed. 2008. New Faces in New Places: The Changing Geography of American Immigration. New York:

Russell Sage Found.Massey DS, Capoferro C. 2008. The geographic diversification of American immigration. See Massey 2008,

pp. 25–50Massey DS, Denton NA. 1987. Trends in the residential segregation of blacks, Hispanics, and Asians: 1970–

1980. Am. Sociol. Rev. 52(6):802–25Massey DS, Denton NA. 1988. The dimensions of residential segregation. Soc. Forces 67(2):281–315Massey DS, Denton NA. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard Univ. PressMassey DS, Rothwell J, Domina T. 2009. The changing bases of segregation in the United States. Ann. Am.

Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 626:74–90Massey DS, White MJ, Phua V. 1996. The dimensions of segregation revisited. Sociol. Methods Res. 25(2):172–

206Mather M, Pollard K, Jacobsen LA. 2011. First results from the 2010 Census. Rep., July, Popul. Ref. Bur.,

Washington, DC. http://www.prb.org/pdf11/reports-on-america-2010-census.pdfMenjıvar C. 2013. When immigration policies affect immigrants’ lives: commentary. Demography 50(3):1097–

99Morenoff JD, Tienda M. 1997. Underclass neighborhoods in temporal and ecological perspective. Ann. Am.

Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 551:59–72Motel S, Patten E. 2012. Characteristics of the 60 largest metropolitan areas by Hispanic population. Rep. Pew

Hisp. Cent., Sept. 19, Pew Res. Cent., Washington, DC. http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2012/09/Top_10_Metro_Area_Findings.pdf

Nelson C, Tienda M. 1985. The structuring of Hispanic ethnicity: historical and contemporary perspectives.Ethn. Racial Stud. 8(1):49–74

O’Neil K, Tienda M. 2010. A tale of two counties: natives’ opinions toward immigration in North Carolina.Int. Migr. Rev. 44(3):728–61

O’Neil KS. 2011. Challenging change: local policies and the new geography of American immigration. PhD Thesis,Princeton Univ., Princeton, NJ

Pais J, South SJ, Crowder K. 2012. Metropolitan heterogeneity and minority neighborhood attainment: spatialassimilation or place stratification? Soc. Probl. 59(2):258–81

Palmer JRB, Espenshade TJ, Bartumeus F, Chung CY, Ozgencil NE, Li K. 2013. New approaches to humanmobility: using mobile phones for demographic research. Demography 50:1105–28


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

http://www.as-coa.org/sites/default/files/ASImmigrationWhitePaper.pdf

http://www.as-coa.org/sites/default/files/ASImmigrationWhitePaper.pdf

http://www.prb.org/pdf11/reports-on-america-2010-census.pdf

http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2012/09/Top_10_Metro_Area_Findings.pdf

http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2012/09/Top_10_Metro_Area_Findings.pdf


Pew Hisp. Cent. 2006. From 200 million to 300 million: the growth numbers behind population growth. Fact Sheet,Pew Res. Hisp. Trends Proj., Pew Res. Cent., Washington, DC

Rosenfeld M, Tienda M. 1999. Mexican immigration, occupational niches and labor market competition:evidence from Los Angeles, Chicago and Atlanta, 1970–1990. In Immigration and Opportunity: Race,Ethnicity, and Employment in the United States, ed. FD Bean, SB Rose, pp. 64–105. New York: Russell SageFound.

Rugh JS, Massey DS. 2010. Racial segregation and the American foreclosure crisis. Am. Sociol. Rev. 75(5):629–51

Rugh JS, Massey DS. 2013. Segregation in post–civil rights America: stalled integration or end of the segregatedcentury? Du Bois Rev.: Soc. Sci. Res. Race 10(2):1–28

Singer A. 2004. The rise of new immigrant gateways. Rep., Cent. Urban Metrop. Policy, Brookings Inst.,Washington, DC. http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2004/02/demographics-singer

South SJ, Crowder K, Chavez E. 2005. Migration and spatial assimilation among U.S. Latinos: classical versussegmented trajectories. Demography 42(3):497–521

Suro R, Singer A. 2002. Latino growth in metropolitan America: changing patterns, new locations. Rep., Cent.Urban Metrop. Policy, Pew Hisp. Cent., Brookings Inst., Washington, DC. http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/10.pdf

Tienda M, Mitchell F, eds. 2006. Multiple Origins: Hispanics and the American Future. Washington, DC: Natl.Acad. Press

Timberlake JM, Iceland J. 2007. Change in racial and ethnic residential inequality in American cities, 1970–2000. City Community 6(4):335–65

Tolnay SE. 2003. The African American “Great Migration” and beyond. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 29:209–32Vicino TJ, Hanlon B, Short JR. 2011. A typology of urban immigrant neighborhoods. Urban Geogr. 32(3):383–

405von Lockette NTD, Johnson J. 2010. Latino employment and residential segregation in metropolitan labor

markets. Du Bois Rev.: Soc. Sci. Res. Race 7(1):151–84Waters MC, Jimenez TR. 2005. Assessing immigrant assimilation: new empirical and theoretical challenges.

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 31:105–25Wilkes R, Iceland J. 2004. Hypersegregation in the twenty-first century. Demography 41(1):23–36Wilson WJ. 1989. The ghetto underclass: social science perspectives. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 501:182–92Winders J. 2011. Re-placing Southern geographies: the role of Latino migration in transforming the South,

its identities, and its study. Southeast. Geogr. 51(2):342Zuniga V, Hernandez-Leon R, eds. 2005. New Destinations: Mexican Immigration in the United States. New

York: Russell Sage Found.


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2004/02/demographics-singer



SO40-FrontMatter ARI 8 July 2014 6:42

Annual Reviewof Sociology

Volume 40, 2014Contents

Prefatory Chapter

Making Sense of CultureOrlando Patterson � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Theory and Methods

Endogenous Selection Bias: The Problem of Conditioning on aCollider VariableFelix Elwert and Christopher Winship � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �31

Measurement Equivalence in Cross-National ResearchEldad Davidov, Bart Meuleman, Jan Cieciuch, Peter Schmidt, and Jaak Billiet � � � � � � � � �55

The Sociology of Empires, Colonies, and PostcolonialismGeorge Steinmetz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �77

Data Visualization in SociologyKieran Healy and James Moody � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 105

Digital Footprints: Opportunities and Challenges for Online SocialResearchScott A. Golder and Michael W. Macy � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 129

Social Processes

Social Isolation in AmericaPaolo Parigi and Warner Henson II � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 153

WarAndreas Wimmer � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 173

60 Years After Brown: Trends and Consequences of School SegregationSean F. Reardon and Ann Owens � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 199

PanethnicityDina Okamoto and G. Cristina Mora � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 219

Institutions and Culture

A Comparative View of Ethnicity and Political EngagementRiva Kastoryano and Miriam Schader � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 241

v

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Formal Organizations

(When) Do Organizations Have Social Capital?Olav Sorenson and Michelle Rogan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 261

The Political Mobilization of Firms and IndustriesEdward T. Walker and Christopher M. Rea � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 281

Political and Economic Sociology

Political Parties and the Sociological Imagination:Past, Present, and Future DirectionsStephanie L. Mudge and Anthony S. Chen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 305

Taxes and Fiscal SociologyIsaac William Martin and Monica Prasad � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 331

Differentiation and Stratification

The One PercentLisa A. Keister � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 347

Immigrants and African AmericansMary C. Waters, Philip Kasinitz, and Asad L. Asad � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 369

Caste in Contemporary India: Flexibility and PersistenceDivya Vaid � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 391

Incarceration, Prisoner Reentry, and CommunitiesJeffrey D. Morenoff and David J. Harding � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 411

Intersectionality and the Sociology of HIV/AIDS: Past, Present,and Future Research DirectionsCeleste Watkins-Hayes � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 431

Individual and Society

Ethnic Diversity and Its Effects on Social CohesionTom van der Meer and Jochem Tolsma � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 459

Demography

Warmth of the Welcome: Attitudes Toward Immigrantsand Immigration Policy in the United StatesElizabeth Fussell � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 479

Hispanics in Metropolitan America: New Realities and Old DebatesMarta Tienda and Norma Fuentes � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 499

Transitions to Adulthood in Developing CountriesFatima Juarez and Cecilia Gayet � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 521

vi Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Race, Ethnicity, and the Changing Context of Childbearingin the United StatesMegan M. Sweeney and R. Kelly Raley � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 539

Urban and Rural Community Sociology

Where, When, Why, and For Whom Do Residential ContextsMatter? Moving Away from the Dichotomous Understanding ofNeighborhood EffectsPatrick Sharkey and Jacob W. Faber � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 559

Gender and Urban SpaceDaphne Spain � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 581

Policy

Somebody’s Children or Nobody’s Children? How the SociologicalPerspective Could Enliven Research on Foster CareChristopher Wildeman and Jane Waldfogel � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 599

Sociology and World Regions

Intergenerational Mobility and Inequality: The Latin American CaseFlorencia Torche � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 619

A Critical Overview of Migration and Development:The Latin American ChallengeRaul Delgado-Wise � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 643

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 31–40 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 665

Cumulative Index of Article Titles, Volumes 31–40 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 669

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Sociology articles may be found athttp://www.annualreviews.org/errata/soc

Contents vii

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AnnuAl Reviewsit’s about time. Your time. it’s time well spent.

AnnuAl Reviews | Connect with Our expertsTel: 800.523.8635 (us/can) | Tel: 650.493.4400 | Fax: 650.424.0910 | Email: [email protected]

New From Annual Reviews:Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational BehaviorVolume 1 • March 2014 • Online & In Print • http://orgpsych.annualreviews.org

Editor: Frederick P. Morgeson, The Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State UniversityThe Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior is devoted to publishing reviews of the industrial and organizational psychology, human resource management, and organizational behavior literature. Topics for review include motivation, selection, teams, training and development, leadership, job performance, strategic HR, cross-cultural issues, work attitudes, entrepreneurship, affect and emotion, organizational change and development, gender and diversity, statistics and research methodologies, and other emerging topics.

Complimentary online access to the first volume will be available until March 2015.TAble oF CoNTeNTs:•An Ounce of Prevention Is Worth a Pound of Cure: Improving

Research Quality Before Data Collection, Herman Aguinis, Robert J. Vandenberg

•Burnout and Work Engagement: The JD-R Approach, Arnold B. Bakker, Evangelia Demerouti, Ana Isabel Sanz-Vergel

•Compassion at Work, Jane E. Dutton, Kristina M. Workman, Ashley E. Hardin

•ConstructivelyManagingConflictinOrganizations, Dean Tjosvold, Alfred S.H. Wong, Nancy Yi Feng Chen

•Coworkers Behaving Badly: The Impact of Coworker Deviant Behavior upon Individual Employees, Sandra L. Robinson, Wei Wang, Christian Kiewitz

•Delineating and Reviewing the Role of Newcomer Capital in Organizational Socialization, Talya N. Bauer, Berrin Erdogan

•Emotional Intelligence in Organizations, Stéphane Côté•Employee Voice and Silence, Elizabeth W. Morrison• Intercultural Competence, Kwok Leung, Soon Ang,

Mei Ling Tan•Learning in the Twenty-First-Century Workplace,

Raymond A. Noe, Alena D.M. Clarke, Howard J. Klein•Pay Dispersion, Jason D. Shaw•Personality and Cognitive Ability as Predictors of Effective

Performance at Work, Neal Schmitt

•Perspectives on Power in Organizations, Cameron Anderson, Sebastien Brion

•Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future of an Interpersonal Construct, Amy C. Edmondson, Zhike Lei

•Research on Workplace Creativity: A Review and Redirection, Jing Zhou, Inga J. Hoever

•Talent Management: Conceptual Approaches and Practical Challenges, Peter Cappelli, JR Keller

•The Contemporary Career: A Work–Home Perspective, Jeffrey H. Greenhaus, Ellen Ernst Kossek

•The Fascinating Psychological Microfoundations of Strategy and Competitive Advantage, Robert E. Ployhart, Donald Hale, Jr.

•The Psychology of Entrepreneurship, Michael Frese, Michael M. Gielnik

•The Story of Why We Stay: A Review of Job Embeddedness, Thomas William Lee, Tyler C. Burch, Terence R. Mitchell

•What Was, What Is, and What May Be in OP/OB, Lyman W. Porter, Benjamin Schneider

•Where Global and Virtual Meet: The Value of Examining the Intersection of These Elements in Twenty-First-Century Teams, Cristina B. Gibson, Laura Huang, Bradley L. Kirkman, Debra L. Shapiro

•Work–Family Boundary Dynamics, Tammy D. Allen, Eunae Cho, Laurenz L. Meier

Access this and all other Annual Reviews journals via your institution at www.annualreviews.org.

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AnnuAl Reviewsit’s about time. Your time. it’s time well spent.

AnnuAl Reviews | Connect with Our expertsTel: 800.523.8635 (us/can) | Tel: 650.493.4400 | Fax: 650.424.0910 | Email: [email protected]

New From Annual Reviews:

Annual Review of Statistics and Its ApplicationVolume 1 • Online January 2014 • http://statistics.annualreviews.org

Editor: Stephen E. Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon UniversityAssociate Editors: Nancy Reid, University of Toronto

Stephen M. Stigler, University of ChicagoThe Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application aims to inform statisticians and quantitative methodologists, as well as all scientists and users of statistics about major methodological advances and the computational tools that allow for their implementation. It will include developments in the field of statistics, including theoretical statistical underpinnings of new methodology, as well as developments in specific application domains such as biostatistics and bioinformatics, economics, machine learning, psychology, sociology, and aspects of the physical sciences.

Complimentary online access to the first volume will be available until January 2015. table of contents:•What Is Statistics? Stephen E. Fienberg•A Systematic Statistical Approach to Evaluating Evidence

from Observational Studies, David Madigan, Paul E. Stang, Jesse A. Berlin, Martijn Schuemie, J. Marc Overhage, Marc A. Suchard, Bill Dumouchel, Abraham G. Hartzema, Patrick B. Ryan

•The Role of Statistics in the Discovery of a Higgs Boson, David A. van Dyk

•Brain Imaging Analysis, F. DuBois Bowman•Statistics and Climate, Peter Guttorp•Climate Simulators and Climate Projections,

Jonathan Rougier, Michael Goldstein•Probabilistic Forecasting, Tilmann Gneiting,

Matthias Katzfuss•Bayesian Computational Tools, Christian P. Robert•Bayesian Computation Via Markov Chain Monte Carlo,

Radu V. Craiu, Jeffrey S. Rosenthal•Build, Compute, Critique, Repeat: Data Analysis with Latent

Variable Models, David M. Blei•Structured Regularizers for High-Dimensional Problems:

Statistical and Computational Issues, Martin J. Wainwright

•High-Dimensional Statistics with a View Toward Applications in Biology, Peter Bühlmann, Markus Kalisch, Lukas Meier

•Next-Generation Statistical Genetics: Modeling, Penalization, and Optimization in High-Dimensional Data, Kenneth Lange, Jeanette C. Papp, Janet S. Sinsheimer, Eric M. Sobel

•Breaking Bad: Two Decades of Life-Course Data Analysis in Criminology, Developmental Psychology, and Beyond, Elena A. Erosheva, Ross L. Matsueda, Donatello Telesca

•Event History Analysis, Niels Keiding•StatisticalEvaluationofForensicDNAProfileEvidence,

Christopher D. Steele, David J. Balding•Using League Table Rankings in Public Policy Formation:

Statistical Issues, Harvey Goldstein•Statistical Ecology, Ruth King•Estimating the Number of Species in Microbial Diversity

Studies, John Bunge, Amy Willis, Fiona Walsh•Dynamic Treatment Regimes, Bibhas Chakraborty,

Susan A. Murphy•Statistics and Related Topics in Single-Molecule Biophysics,

Hong Qian, S.C. Kou•Statistics and Quantitative Risk Management for Banking

and Insurance, Paul Embrechts, Marius Hofert

Access this and all other Annual Reviews journals via your institution at www.annualreviews.org.

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

14.4

0:49

9-52

0. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by 1

73.7

1.10

7.13

4 on

08/

11/1

4. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Hispanics in Metropolitan America: New Realities and Old ......SO40CH23-Tienda ARI 27 June 2014...

Documents

Transcript of Hispanics in Metropolitan America: New Realities and Old ......SO40CH23-Tienda ARI 27 June 2014...