This book provides an expert examination and comparison of housing segregation in major population centers in the United States and Western Europe and analyzes successes and failures of government policies and desegregation programs in the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Sweden, France, and West Germany. The collection begins with a review of the historical development of housing segregation in these countries, describing current housing conditions, concentration of housing in each country's leading cities, minority populations and the housing they occupy-specifically public, nonprofit, and owner-occupied dwellings. When focusing on the United States, the contributors assess housing segregation, antisegregation measures, and institutional racism toward blacks in the Midwest and South, and toward Mexican-Americans throughout American cities. Chapters dealing with Western Europe include housing segregation of South Asian and West Indian immigrants in Britain, immigrants in Sweden, Turkish, and Yugoslav guest workers in West Germany, and Algerian and other Arab groups in France. The book concludes with discussions of public housing policies; suburban desegregation, resegregation, and integration maintenance programs; specific integration stabilization programs; and desegregation efforts in one specific place. Contributors. Elizabeth Huttman, Michal Arend, Cihan Arin, Maurice Blanc, Wim Blauw, Ger Mik, Clyde McDaniels, Jurgen Friedrichs, Hannes Alpheis, John M. Goering, Len Gordon, Albert Mayer, Rosemary Helper, Barry V. Johnston, Terry Jones, Valerie Karn, Goran Lindberg, Anna Lisa Linden, Deborah Phillips, Dennis Keating, Juliet Saltman, Alan Murie

This paper tests hypotheses derived from traditional economic theory and world systems/dependency theory on the effects of agricultural export specialization on economic growth in the Third World. The data are consistent with the latter since degree of such specialization is negatively related to per capita GNP growth between 1970 and 1980, a trend especially pronounced in relatively well-off peripheral countries.

:This article compares the effects of “push” and “pull” factors on decisions of white and black households without children to move from central cities to the suburbs. Unlike previous studies where the independent and dependent variables are aggregate characteristics of the metropolitan areas or individual suburbs, in this article the units are individual households and the variables characteristics of these households or the metropolitan area where they live. The data suggest that black and white decisions are affected by the same variables in the same way, and that blacks and whites are equally likely to move to the suburbs. We also find that both groups tend to move away from the central cities of metropolitan areas with large black populations and in which housing is relatively concentrated in the suburbs, consistent with both the “push” and “pull” hypotheses. However, neither racial group was apparently influenced by job suburbanization or central city crime rates, which is inconsistent with these hypotheses.

The relationship between central city dominance and suburban differentiation is explicated in a three-time point panel analysis of large American metropolitan areas. A maximum likelihood estimation technique (LISREL) is used to estimate the hypothesized models. Little evidence is found to support the central theoretical assertion that dominance and intersuburban are causally related. In this paper a key proposition in the ecological theory of metropolitan growth is tested. This theory specifies that the growth of metropolitan areas involves concentration of integrative activities in their centers, on the one hand, and the expansion of the fringe population and its sorting into increasingly specialized suburbs, on the other hand (Bogue 1950; Gras 1922; Hawley 1950, 1981; Kasarda 1972; McKenzie 1933; Sly and Tayman 1982a, 1980b). However, despite the prominence of this theory within the ecological perspective, empirical verification is surprisingly limited and the theory is ambiguous on a number of important questions. In particular, it does not specify the nature of functional specialization or the direction of the causal link between the concentration of integrative activities in the center and differentiation of suburbs. Our principal concern is explicating the theoretical and empirical dimensions of differentiation and their link with dominance, as well as determining the extent, and especially the direction, of any causal dependency. To examine these questions we specify and evaluate models which incorporate measures of each at three points in time. A related concern is with the role played by other structural characteristics of metropolitan areas in producing differentiation among suburbs and the concentration of integrative activities in their centers. *Address correspondence to either author, Department of Sociology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907. (8 19QR The T Tniuprsitv nf Mnrth Carnoina Press

This paper contrasts the performance levels and promotion experiences of 371 faculty members under three different market conditions reflecting the supply and demand for university faculty (buyer's market, seller's market, and stable market). The central questions examined are, What is the effect of market conditions upon (1) the length of time it takes for promotion; (2) the promotion rate; (3) the productivity of assistant and associate professors before each promotion; and (4) the productivity of full professors after attaining that rank? Findings are most consistent with a market model indicating that faculty promoted during a buyer's market remain in rank longer before being promoted and exhibit a greater rate of productivity than faculty promoted during other market conditions. There is also support for the elite model in that the impact of “tight” market conditions on productivity is greatest for faculty below the rank of full professor.

In this study the conditions are compared under which black and white upper-middle-class male inmigrants to large metropolitan areas between 1965 and 1970 chose the suburbs. Models of this aspect of the suburbanization process are evaluated for upper-middle-class members of each racial group. White suburbanization was led by the middle class, which responded primarily to the location of new housing, and an attempt is made to determine the extent to which this was true for blacks. Since almost no previous research has dealt with the determinants of suburbanization by socioeconomic status, either black or white, this analysis provides a more detailed understanding of the nature of the process. The units of analysis are metropolitan areas with 1970 total populations of 500,000 or greater, with moderately large central-city black populations.

The effects of annexation and other structural variables on suburban population growth between 1960 and 1970 are explored for a sample of 825 American suburbs which are greater than 10,000 in population size. Annexation was found to play a significant role in suburban population growth, but migration and natural increase play more substantial roles. As expected, size and region had significant impacts on suburban annexation, but density and socioeconomic status had no effects on annexation.

The relative impacts of net migration, annexation and natural increase on central city population change are examined for the 118 largest American central cities. Region, central city age, and population size are also included as exogenous variables in the causal model. Annexation is found to offset some losses due to migration in older cities, but it is natural increase of the population that ensures continued central city growth or reduces the probability of decline.

This study examines the ability of central cities within 61 large metropolitan areas to attract high status in-migrants and those in their most economically productive years. The emerging literature on central city revitalization suggests that the position of cities improved between the late fifties and late sixties, a pattern generally supported by the data. However, the data indicate that large northeastern and midwestern cities improved more rapidly than either smaller cities in the same region, or their large southern and western counterparts. These data suggest a kind of evolutionary sequence and support the hypothesis that the worst may indeed be over for northern central cities.

This study explores the potential impact of racial composition and racial change on the socioeconomic status of American suburbs. The sample includes 697 suburbs for which data were available for the study variables, which are percent black, change in percent black, suburban age, employment/residence ratio, population growth and size, distance from the central city, and several socioeconomic status measures. It was found that the impact of racial composition and change on suburban status was either non‐existant or spurious.

In this study the causes of two aspects of white movement to the suburbs are analyzed: the probability that a white central city resident moved to the suburbs between 1965 and 1970 and the probability that a white in- migrant to metropolitan areas settled in the suburbs. The units of analyses are the 112 metropolitan areas where the central city has a 1960 population of 100000 or more and where the central city and the metropolitan area were not coterminous. Primary concern is with determining whether whites are fleeting central city problems (such as crime taxes strikes race riots and large black populations) or were drawn to the suburbs because it is there that new housing and jobs were located. A model of the suburbanization process is explicated and evaluated using path analysis. (authors)

The authors replying to Professor Burch believe that he misrepresents the logic of their statistical analysis. Professor Burch refers only to zero order differences. Instead Marshall and Jiobu argue that groups can have identical family sizes but for different reasons and the statistical analysis they used permits an assessment of the following: 1) mean levels on such variables as education age at first marriage; 2) differences in the degree to which these variables affect family size; and 3) the effect of minority membership per se. There is also a fourth factor the error term but it has no substantive interpretation. Even if 2 groups have the same family sizes the underlying causal structures explaining the means need not be the same for both groups. For example while the mean difference between Japanese-American and native whites is 0.11 the difference due to minority status alone is 0.99; that is if other forces affecting Japanese-American and native white fertility did not offset the effect of minority status Japanese-American families would be almost 1 person smaller than native white families. The authors submit that this difference is quite substantial theoretically interesting and not at all evident from the analysis that Professor Burch presents in his letter. The significance tests which he computes are not germane to the problem since they are zero-order statistics and cannot be used to tease out underlying causal structures.

This study examines the impact of black population size and rate of increase on white population change in American suburbs between 1960 and 1970. The data indicate that there is no tipping point. In small suburbs the black population variables interact, while in medium and large suburbs percent black has a moderate additive effect on white population growth and black population increase is unimportant. These patterns persist even when variables causally prior to the white and black population variables are controlled. Finally, in only a few instances within the observed range of percent black or rate of black population increase, or any combination of these variables, was there any absolute decline in the white population.

This study analyzes the movement of blacks to the suburbs of American metropolitan areas, using the framework developed by Taeuber and Taeuber (1965) for the analysis of racial transition in inner city neighborhoods. The data are consistent with their model and suggest that the rate of black population growth is a function not only of the characteristies of individual suburbs themselves, but also of the central cities of the metropolitan areas within which they are located. The units of analysis are all suburbs with populations of 10,000 or more in 1960 and 1970. Suburban size is a key characteristic because the independent variables affect black population growth quite differently in different size categories. While there are clear differences between southern and nonsouthern suburbs in average levels of the push and pull variables, as well as the rate at which the black suburban population grew in the 1960s, the effects of these variables on black suburban growth were the same in both regions.

Summary In this study, the family sizes of Chinese, Japanese and Filipino Americans are compared with those of whites, using data from the 1970 public use samples for California and Hawaii. The two hypotheses derived from the ‘minority status’ hypothesis are tested; the latter states that minorities experience tensions and anxiety which lead to lower fertility compared with native whites of Anglo-Saxon ancestry under certain conditions. We also examine the effect of assimilation in terms of variables known to affect fertility, and control for several age and acculturation variables. Analysis, based on a regression decomposition model, gives some support to the argument that the family size of minority groups differs from that of native whites because of incomplete assimilation and because independent variables affect fertility differently. However, since the independent effect of minority status per se is generally to raise fertility for Japanese and Chinese Americans, and lower it for Filipinos, we reject this version of the minority status hypothesis. Our general conclusion is that family size differentials in a pluralistic society may be part of a persisting pattern of sub-cultural differentiation, and do not necessarily reflect any ‘tensions and anxiety’ of minority status.

In this study, using the statistical models recently introduced by Goodman, we analyze the reasons why individuals choose the car or public transportation for the journey to work and draw out some of the implications of our analysis for public policy. Building on the work of Schnore, we develop a model in which both structural and individual variables are interrelated and show that the structural contexts within which individuals make decisions about their choice are crucial. We also show that, while status differentials are largely accounted for by income differences, male preferences for the automobile tend not to be due either to the structural variables or to income differences. Our findings suggest that present policies designed to induce people to shift to public transportation for the journey to work are not likely to be effective, since they do nothing to alter present cost differentials between the two modes.

This paper presents an analysis of the relative utility of three competing (but related) hypotheses regarding the factors which are thought to cause the higher incomes of migrants compared with nonmigrants. Data are derived from a larger study of engineers and a multiple regression technique is used to decompose the difference between the mean income scores of migrants and nonmigrants. Support is demonstrated for two of the hypotheses: (1) that migrants are selected in terms of attributes conducive to success and (2) that migrants are disproportionately located in areas where opportunity structures are superior. No consistent pattern of interaction is demonstrable. The implications of these findings for mobility research are discussed. It appears that in terms of relative contribution to the observed migrant-nonmigrant income differential, migratory selectivity is considerably more important.