Você está na página 1de 24

Clark University

The Roepke Lecture in Economic Geography Urban Restructuring from a Demographic


Perspective
Author(s): W. A. V. Clark
Source: Economic Geography, Vol. 63, No. 2 (Apr., 1987), pp. 103-125
Published by: Clark University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/144149 .
Accessed: 23/07/2014 10:56
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Clark University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Economic Geography.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 143.106.201.10 on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:56:04 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
E C O N O M I E GRAPHY
VO L. 63
APRI L,
1987 N o. 2
THE RO E PKE LE C TURE I N E C O N O M I C GE O GRAPHY
URBAN RE STRUC TURI N G FRO M ADE M O GRAPHI C
PE RSPE C TI VE v
W. A. V. C LARK
University of C alifornia, Los Angeles
The central argument of this paper is that recent research has overemphasized
the notions of urban restructuring and undervalued the role of spatial demograph-
ics in understanding urban and region spatial patterns. The paper examines the
notions embedded in urban restructuring and suggests that a focus on several
elements of demographic processes is an equally important component of under-
standing urban and region spatial structure. Aspecific discussion of the Los Angeles
region indicates that there is a high level of complexity in social-spatial change.
Social-spatial change is not simply explained by reference to an unspecified urban
restructuring.
The central theme of this paper is that
the notion of urban restructuring, at least
as currently expressed, has undervalued
the role of demographic change and
especially its spatial expression. To under-
stand the changes in spatial patterning it is
insufficient to view residential structure in
class terms alone. The paper both argues
theoretically and demonstrates empiri-
cally that a spatial demographic focus is
central to understanding regional change,
and the intersection of economic and
demographic analyses offers a rich poten-
tial for understanding spatial patterns.
'The Roepke Lecture in E conomic Geography
was established to honor the late Professor Howard
G. Roepke who served on the faculty of the Univer-
sity of I llinois at Urbana-C hampaign from 1952
until 1985. The lecturer is chosen by the geography
faculty of that institution in consultation with the
editor of this journal. The paper was read at the
Annual M eeting of the Association of American
Geographers, April, 1987. The author would like to
thank Art Getis and David Plane for their comments
at the presentation of this paper and E ric M oore and
David Angel for comments and suggestions on ear-
lier drafts of the material.
The linking of several social-economic
dimensions provides the basis for an
extended research agenda, rather than an
agenda organized around restructuring
per se. And, the emphasis on urban re-
structuring as a result of the division of
labor obscures the complex set of social-
economic forces which generate spatial
patterns.
E ven though the notions of restructur-
ing are often related to the spatial division
of labor, criticism of urban restructuring
is not necessarily a criticism of the spatial
division of labor. I ndeed, the notions of
the division of labor, the role of the state,
and the reproduction of labor have en-
riched our understanding of societal rela-
tions. But, at the same time, the attempt to
focus on the commodity production sys-
tem in space has led to a denigration of
the important roles of migration and fer-
tility, household composition change, and
altered family lifestyles. M assey [41] sug-
gests that economics and economic geog-
raphy have been silent on the central and
critical issues of the division of labor [41];
This content downloaded from 143.106.201.10 on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:56:04 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
104 E C O N O M I C GE O GRAPHY
the contention of this paper is that the
urban restructuring literature, by recog-
nizing only the role of production, has
erred in the opposite direction. From the
perspective of this paper, an analysis
which can blend variables that capture
spatial economic change and spatial
demographic change is the challenge in
creating a richer spatial analysis. We must
also recognize that the changes that are
propelled by economic and demographic
forces are subject to policy interven-
tions-but the role of the state must be
seen as more than a class-based interven-
tion.
The body of this paper reviews recent
theoretical debates, outlines the notions
of restructuring, discusses the notion of a
demographic imperative and demo-
graphic change, and evaluates the impacts
of state intervention in urban structures.
M E THO DO LO GI C AL DE BATE S
The rapidity of spatial economic
change, city growth, and suburbanization
following the Second World War cap-
tured the attention of economists and
geographers alike. O ne of the outcomes
was a more process-oriented economic
geography. The new economic geography
epitomized the notion that analytical
methods devoted to understanding eco-
nomic activities in space would yield real
advances in knowledge. The old concern
with describing the locations of coal, iron
ore, and steel fabricating plants was re-
placed with the search for general laws of
locational forces.
As part of the ongoing attempt to
develop better theoretical structures, so-
cial physicists within geography argued
that human beings obey mathematical
rules, resembling in a general way, some
of the laws of physics [66]. The thrust of
social physics and its translation as spatial
analysis was to change the concern in
geography from the unique, the micro-
scopic, and the focus on regions, to a con-
cern with models, laws, and systematic
geography. Throughout the 1960s, the
geography agenda was concerned with
turning geography into a science. The
particular emphasis on geometry (espe-
cially of central places) was unique to
geography, but the use of statistical and
mathematical approaches was paralleled
by an increasing concern with mathemat-
ics in anthropology, political science, and
sociology. Thus, a major core of geog-
raphy emphasized space, spatial relations,
and change in space. An obvious exten-
sion was to focus on the structuring (or
organization) of space-how individuals
relate through space, and how they have
organized society in space [46, p. 3].
N ot surprisingly, a solely geometrical
approach to space was eventually ques-
tioned by geographers, who were both-
ered by both the strict limits of the geomet-
rical approach and the strong assumptions
of economic man that were often em-
bedded in geography as spatial analysis
[29; 56]. The behaviorists argued that the
models being developed were not very
good descriptions of reality, and that
geographical theory was developing
slowly, if at all. To behavioral geogra-
phers, if geography deals only with points
and lines on maps, it might utilize geome-
try as its approach. I f it is more than that,
then the laws of geometry are insufficient
to build a science of geography. Geome-
try alone is insufficient as a basis for
explanation and prediction, since no proc-
esses are involved in the derivation of
geometries
[59].
Behavioral geography was a 1970s re-
sponse to the geometrical/economic man
approach of the 1950s and 1960s. I n some
ways, it was a continuation of earlier
attempts to develop approaches which
did not fit easily into the notions of profit
maximizing decision making or (travel)
distance minimization on which the geo-
metrical approaches to geography - had
been built. The focus on the way in which
choices are made and the way in which
knowledge influenced those choices, in
essence, the decision process in a spatial
context, formed the basis for a broadened
geography. I nterest shifted from location
in space to processes in space and the
desire to derive alternative theories to
This content downloaded from 143.106.201.10 on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:56:04 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
URBAN RE STRUC TURI N G 105
those which are based on economic man.
The concern was more with why activi-
ties take place and with the patterns they
produce in space, rather than location per
se. While neoclassical economics and
geometry were important underpinnings
for geography as a spatial science, behav-
ioral geographers looked to psychology
for help in understanding decision mak-
ing in space.
These two themes, geography as ge-
ometry and locational analysis, and geog-
raphy as cognitive process, effectively
dominated geography through the mid-
1970s. They were in some sense structural
and behavioral, or macro-contextual con-
cerns (albeit rather narrowly focused),
and micro-household foci. But, beginning
in the 1970s and continuing to the present,
we have had a considerable fragmenta-
tion and a greater concern with the under-
lying philosophical issues of research in
geography and the nature of the links
between individual action and social
structure.
M uch of the debate was and is still
stimulated by the desire to achieve a
broader, overarching theory of, geo-
graphic analysis. The debates over action
and structure took place within the cruci-
ble of arguments about the role of positiv-
ism or, more strictly, post-positivism. The
alternative foci included humanism, real-
ism, and, most recently, issues of structur-
alism and the context within which indi-
vidual behavior occurs. M ost recently,
the concern to develop a theory of society
has revolved around investigations of the
structure of capitalism, and, in the late-
1970s, there was a vigorous debate about
the value of neo-M arxist approaches to
understanding society and its forms. M uch
of the debate utilized class relations as the
point of departure, and the task was to
work out the links between production
(as related to class) and all other elements
of society. I n part, this focus on produc-
tion can be seen as a reaction to the focus
on cities as centers of consumption and on
issues of micro-behavior rather than
macro-structures. The debates about how
to understand late twentieth century ur-
ban patterns now emphasize cities as cen-
ters of production. The claim is that, in
order to understand society at large, we
need to understand production which
drives the city. From this perspective, to
understand residential communities, it is
necessary to understand the role of pro-
duction.
Asurvey of this extensive literature
reveals at least three important threads
which are central in the development of
the theory of society from the perspective
of a new economic geography. There is a
concern with the spatial division of labor
which emphasizes the relationship of la-
bor to industry [41; 68], the examination
of the reproduction of labor [32; 54], and
the studies of the role of the state [7; 8;
38]. These notions, whether identified as
neo-M arxist or the new economic geog-
raphy, are a coherent set of ideas aimed at
explaining society. O f course, they are
not the only overarching theoretical per-
spectives. The notions embedded in the
new housing economics [17], the con-
strained choice concepts [51], and even
accounting approaches to societal change
are competing theories [60].
THE N O TI O N O F RE STRUC TURI N G
O ut of the methodological debates,
and particularly the discussions of the
division of labor, the ideas of restructur-
ing-sometimes urban restructuring-
have emerged. Restructuring is the ter-
minology used to describe technological
and organizational changes in production
and their spatial expression [4]. Some
have suggested that restructuring should
be the central concept of an economic
geography of contemporary capitalism
[64]. Although restructuring appears to
have more than one meaning, at its most
general, it appears to refer to the complex
of organizational changes occurring in
industry and their spatial outcomes [3; 52;
61]. Bluestone and Harrison [3] in particu-
lar argue that fundamental changes in the
organization of industry (which operates
largely within urban regions) have given
rise to an overall urban restructuring. But
This content downloaded from 143.106.201.10 on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:56:04 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
106 E C O N oM ic GE O GRAPHY
an attempt to delve beneath the simple
terminology of urban restructuring raises
several questions or problems.
First, at the most elementary level, are
the (present) changes in industry and
society anything more than a continua-
tion of processes that began 50 to 100
years ago? The common description in-
vokes urban restructuring as a situation or
process in which "there has been a series
of structural changes which have signifi-
cantly modified the social and economic
geography of the region ... a comprehen-
sive process of urban restructuring" [64,
p. 195]. At least implicitly, the changes
are typified as different from ones that
have occurred in the past, and thus the
term urban restructuring is designed to
reflect a new type of change or a new
social and spatial reorganization of the
urban region. (The empirical question of
whether the changes are different will be
taken up later in the discussion.)
Asecond question revolves around the
extent to which the notion of restructur-
ing appears to be general, that is, applies
to both social and economic processes. I n
particular, the focus of the urban restruc-
turing discussion is on the way in which
labor is organized and how labor inter-
sects with capital. To this extent, the new
division of labor [41 ] is the linchpin of the
notion of urban restructuring. The impli-
cation is that all processes can be drawn
(ultimately) from the division of labor.
Athird issue is that the discussions of
restructuring are largely empirical with
little theorization beyond relying on the
changing organization of industry. I n
some sense, urban restructuring appears
almost as an appendage to the more
complex notions of the division of labor.
Restructuring as a function of the spatial
division of labor is most clearly enun-
ciated by M assey [41], who argues that
behind major shifts between dominant
spatial divisions of labor lie changes in the
spatial organization of capitalist relations
of production which together produce a
particular form of spatial patterning of
society [41, p. 8]. M assey's presentation
and a companion presentation by Storper
and Walker [68] uses the organizing con-
cept "spatial structures of production" as
an approach to increase our understand-
ing of how those firms with an internal
division of labor are able to take advan-
tage of geographical differences within
the labor force. N ow, the working out of
this structure, at least as presented by
M assey, is largely firm based. M assey
notes that "spatially differentiated pat-
terns of production are one of the bases of
geographical variation in social structure
and class relations. They are not the only
cause, but they are significant" [41, p.
117]. I n a substantial portion of M assey's
book, the examples suggest that spatial
social separation is the outcome of the
spatial division of labor. To M assey "spa-
tial reorganization is an important aspect
of industrial reorganization and regions
are a product of such processes" [41, p.
196].
There is evidence that an analysis of
industrial location based on the division
of labor has enriched our understanding
of how changes in industrial organization
and the labor process have reshaped the
territoriality of employment [41; 68]. But,
as M artin [40] has succinctly noted, "it has
much less to say on the geography of
labor supply and on the exchange process
in the local labor market. As a result, it
provides an incomplete conceptual frame-
work in which to analyze the complex
interplay of demand and supply or of the
exchange process in the local labor mar-
ket" [40, p. 571]. M artin goes further to
emphasize the need to "incorporate con-
sideration of the distinct social and insti-
tutional mechanisms that generate the
hierarchically arranged secondary asym-
metries of labour-market segmentation,
mechanisms that cannot be simply 'read
Qff' from or reduced to the basic dualism
between capital and labor" [40, p. 571].
Urban restructuring is much more than
industrial change, and there are many
components at the individual level. I n a
slightly different vein, but reflecting a
similar concern, Ley [37] also questions
the simple notion of a powerful elite (cap-
ital) in the structuring and restructuring
This content downloaded from 143.106.201.10 on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:56:04 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
URBAN RE STRUC TURI N G 107
of urban land. I n a review of Hartman's
(1984) study of San Francisco, he notes
that the collusion between business and
local-political interest was repeatedly dis-
torted or interrupted by idiosyncratic
events. He argues, as a result, that to
really understand the way in which the
structuring and restructuring of urban
land occurred requires "that the black
box of urban culture be opened and its
dynamic be fully assessed" [37, p. 534].
URBAN RE STRUC TURI N GFRO M A
DE M O GRAPHI C PE RSPE C TI VE
Between the conceptual notions of the
spatial division of labor, the role of the
state, and the reproduction of labor and
the ideas of restructuring there is a set of
concepts that relate to processes at a more
specific scale. These include (among oth-
ers) the mobility of labor (to metropoli-
tan areas), changes in fertility, changing
household dynamics, local mobility, and
the state management of populations.
These have often been the focus of specific
investigations within urban and economic
geography. These concepts are at a differ-
ent level of generalization than the pre-
vious discussions of higher level theories
(Figure 1). I n addition, these concepts
involve, explicitly or implicitly, descrip-
tive statements of their spatial expression.
We need to know about these phenomena,
but they are not a theory of society, nor
do they replace the search for higher lev-
els of theory. Also, the variables embed-
ded in these concepts are not exogenous.
Household composition and its changes
reflect an interplay of both economic and
geographic forces. N ow, at the same
time, there is the possibility of higher
level theorizing about demographic proc-
esses, as illustrated by the attempts to
understand population processes, espe-
cially fertility changes at a global level
[15; 8] the use of spatial demographic
accounting as a process monitoring ap-
proach to population change [72], and the
attempts to link population and resources
[19]. The individual processes identified
in Figure 1 also have a theoretical com-
ponent. While geographers have focused
largely on issues of migration [19; 13] and
Spatial Division
Reproduction
Role of the State
of Labor of Labor
C hanges
LclM blt
M obility in
Fertility State
M anagement
of Labor
Household
of PopulAtioA
Dynamics
M igration
RE STRUC TURI N GO F PO PULATI O N
AT THE LO C AL LE VE L
Fig. 1. Relationships among restructuring and demographic concepts.
This content downloaded from 143.106.201.10 on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:56:04 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
108 E C O N O M I C GE O GRAPHY
spatial interaction
[22; 53],
the decline in
mortality,
the accelerating rate of popula-
tion growth, and the increasing contrasts
in population structures between the 'de-
veloped
and developing world have em-
phasized the role of demography and
population analysis as a critical compo-
nent of understanding a complex society.
Accelerating population growth rates, in-
creasing urbanization, and the associated
problems of hunger and malnutrition and
of environmental degradation led to a
concern with understanding the role of
population processes and their intersec-
tion with the economic structure.
I n arguing for the necessity of under-
standing urban change, the focus of this
paper is necessarily directed to the four
structures in the middle level of Figure 1.
Although the diagram suggests a linearity
in the relationships, it is obvious that indi-
vidual change (economic change) can
influence population patterns just as we
argue here that population processes in-
fluence "restructuring." However, the
focus here is on the way in which each of
these components-regional population
shifts, fertility change, household dynam-
ics, local mobility, and state managed
population distributions-are central to
understanding localized population
change. Asimilar emphasis on empirical/
conceptual analysis is suggested by Fin-
cher [21]. How do these components
relate to local and to place specific
change?
The changing flows of population na-
tionally, regionally (from frostbelt to
sunbelt), and from cities to suburbs have
been the subject of scores of articles from
both geographic and economic perspec-
tives. Suffice it to say that the spatial redis-
tributions have rearranged the patterns of
groups within cities and have major im-
plications for the declining and growing
regions. The selective migration of the
elderly [28] and the selective in-migration
of new immigrants [43] have created
situations where in some parts of the
country there are under-utilized or va-
cated facilities, while in other growth
areas, population increases have created
problems for local governments gener-
ally and especially for local school sys-
tems.
I nternational population flows are a
good example of multiple-determined
phenomena, which in turn create com-
plex social spatial patterns. C ertainly, the
modern state influences the labor supply
needed for economic development. I n-
ternational migrations are more than the
sum of individual motivations, but we
should not undervalue the powerful indi-
vidual drives-individual economic ad-
vancement, the desire for education, and
increases in human welfare. N ot all shifts
in population are simply tied to changing
economic conditions. The major immi-
gration flows reiterate again the necessity
of understanding the demographic im-
perative in parallel to economic changes.
While Greenwood [31] has provided ex-
tensive disequilibrium models of popula-
tion flows, C lark [6] has suggested the
importance of government programs in
influencing the shifts of population.
However, M orrill [48] has raised serious
issues about the extent to which a society,
even in the search for social justice, can
take on the role of preserving a given
geographical structure. The way in which
policy is exerted has particular geographic
impacts-not all of them welcome ones.
This paper addresses the tension between
policy and outcome in a later section.
The flows of population are not inde-
pendent of changing fertility and the
differences in fertility between native and
immigrant populations. The last decade
of the twentieth century will be the period
in which the baby boom generation will
continue to mature. Fertility will remain
low. Some demographers have described
it as the maturation of the U.S. population
[66]. Population age pyramids indicate
that the passage of the baby boom popu-
lation will effectively elongate the age
pyramid, which will become something
closer to a rectangle at least for the Anglo
population. The U.S. will eventually par-
allel the demographic shifts that are well
in place in Western E uropean nations
(Figure 2).
This content downloaded from 143.106.201.10 on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:56:04 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
URBAN RE STRUC TURI N G 109
n 2E
co
o
)
C
co
co co
C ) LL
0
a
0
c c
0~~~~~~0
0~~~~~~~
n
E
_ 0
co >,
0~~~~~~~~~
02 S~~~~~
) m m o
C L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ZO O
_. zT w
C ))
D cn~~~~~~
0)<
co o 0-U
m m;
co
t a)t a t ) ta) a)t a) 't
A
+
fl c (D o Uo 't 't C ) C m 'I
a t
+ C C I I I I I I I I I C C
LO C O C O O C 0 LO ) 0 LO ) 00 0 LO 0)L0
r-_ r-o
)o
LO LO I t 't
)
V
)
04 04o
)
s-C ~- C D C D C O C U) C t)
C h
C o
39V
This content downloaded from 143.106.201.10 on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:56:04 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
110 E C O N O M I c GE O GRAPHY
Fertility is connected to household size
and composition changes. By 1985, the
number of persons per household had
decreased to 2.70, whereas as recently as
1950 it was 3.37. I n 1900, it was 4.85.
Unless there is a major change in the
number of women having children in
their later years, there will continue to be
a decrease in household size. Part of this
pattern of decline appears to be the result
of a large number of women under age 30
who are married and have no children.
But, changing household size is not just a
function of the rise and fall of the birth of
children, it is also related to basic changes
in the family life cycle [65]. Divorce rates
have increased from approximately 2.2 in
1960 to about 5.3 per 1000 population in
1980. How these household composition
changes will be worked out is still unclear,
but it has had significant impacts on the
housing market. There is no doubt that
changing social relations have had a speci-
fic spatial impact in terms of the increase
in the 1970s in the absorption of new hous-
ing construction.
The importance and impact of social
and demographic change especially the
role of the changing family structure and
the neglect of studies of gender has been
raised by Pratt and Hanson [55]. Their
claim that the bases of residential pattern-
ing has changed is bolstered by discussion
of a similar set of demographic forces.
They conclude that theories of social
reproduction that draw upon outmoded
characterizations of urban residential
structure simply distort the processes
through which political consciousness and
social identity are defined.
Female-headed families, non-family
households, and childless, unmarried
couples represent rapidly growing seg-
ments of the population. O ne of the fun-
damental questions in understanding the
changing structure of the city is what the
impacts of decreasing household size,
female-headed households, and non-
family households will be on the structure
of the city, especially in an era of de-
creased shelter-buying power. C ertainly
these groups will have an impact on the
way in which households select and use
urban resources. At least one implication
that has already received comment is that
as the age structure shifts to a more eld-
erly population, and with many more non-
family households, part of the rationale
for suburbia has been removed [66, p. 37].
Related to demographic/economic
change are the trends in the number of
women in the labor force and the number
of two-worker households (Table 1). The
entry of women into the workforce is a
good example of the interrelated nature
of economic and demographic force. While
there are strong social drives in limiting
the number of children and delaying
child birth-the growth in multiple
worker families regardless of the realities
of child-rearing-emphasizes the strong
economic stimulation to this change.
N ational and regional flows are even-
tually worked out at local levels in terms
of the spatial patterning of the city, and it
is worth reiterating some of the changes
in the population distributions within cit-
ies. Recent studies have documented the
extent to which the central cities are los-
ing population and the suburban rings are
expanding. I n some cases, that expansion
extends beyond the suburban ring into
small towns and communities with acces-
sibility to major metropolitan areas. The
suburban rings, however, still represent
some of the fastest growing territories in
the U.S., but it is the composition of those
changes which are most significant. I n sev-
eral studies of mobility between central
cities and suburbs, Frey [23; 24] demon-
strates that while some black households
have been able to make suburbanward
moves, much of the destination selectiv-
ity of black households is still central city
oriented. I n another study, C lark [11] was
able to demonstrate that even in the cases
where black households had higher in-
comes and came from outside the metro-
politan area, they overwhelmingly se-
lected central city locations.
The issues of biases in destination selec-
tivity raises questions about the extent to
which they relate to (destination) prefer-
ences over time. I t appears that two forces
This content downloaded from 143.106.201.10 on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:56:04 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
URBAN RE STRUC TURI N G 111
TABLE 1
WO M E N I N THE LABO RFO RC E ' (N UM BE RS I N THO USAN DS)
Proportion
of Families
Female Population' Those in Percent With 2 Labor Force
16 Years C ivilian in Labor Workers Participation
and O ver Labor Force Force or M ore Rate of Wives
1950 54,293 18,389 33.9 36.1 23.8
1955 57,610 20,548 35.7 36.2 27.7
1960 61,615 23,240 37.7 38.3 30.5
1965 66,763 26,200 39.2 41.6 34.7
1970 72,774 31,520 43.3 46.2 40.8
1975 79,954 36,998 46.3 48.7 44.4
1980 86,604 44,574 51.5 53.7 50.1
1985 93,736 51,050 54.5 - 54.3
'N on-institutional population.
Sources: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, E mployment and E arnings, (monthly); U.S. Bureau of
the C ensus, C urrent Population Survey, unpublished data; U.S. Statistical Abstract.
are at work. O n the one hand, there is a
strong revealed preference for continued
clustering on ethnic and racial grounds,
and on the other, there is upward social
and economic mobility which has led to
decreased overall levels of racial separa-
tion-at least for black-white segregation
(see C lark [11] and Farley [20] for tables
and a discussion), While many of these
rates are still high, as measured by the
index of dissimilarity, there has been a
decrease in the indices since 1970, and
there is every indication that the indices
will have decreased still further in the
1980s. We cannot conclude that there is
an increasing ghettoization of blacks, at
least from the indices of separation. I n-
deed, a recent study by the Urban I nsti-
tute [44] indicates quite clearly that the
redistribution of the white population
toward more integrated neighborhoods
grew in the 1970s as a significant propor-
tion of the black population shifted away
from established ghetto areas [44, p. 1].
M ost importantly, however, they re-
ported that the suburbanization of urban
blacks seems to be related to increased
levels of income [44, p. 16]. This, of
course, is consistent with other analyses
which suggest that the importance of
economic changes is leading to greater
levels of black integration [11].
Although there is some evidence of
decreasing levels of segregation, the trend
of continuing high absolute levels raises
again the issues of explanations for the
segregated residential pattern in U.S.
metropolitan areas. I n general, a multiple
causation argument focused on afforda-
bility, urban structure, and preferences,
with a residual explanation by discrimi-
nation [11], is the most defensible (see
Farley [20] for an alternate view). The
role of preferences should not be under-
estimated. The levels of tolerance be-
tween blacks and whites seem to have
stabilized. Several individual studies have
indicated that white households prefer
neighborhoods with relatively small
numbers of minorities, and blacks prefer
much more integrated neighborhoods
(Table 2). But, given the economic struc-
ture of the city, that is unlikely to occur,
and short of a major change in white
preferences, or major economic gains on
the part of blacks, major integration be-
tween the races is unlikely. Similarly, the
patterns of Hispanic and Asian prefer-
ences indicate a strong desire for own-
race association. I t is difficult to account
for this spatial separation solely in terms
of the division of labor expressed as
urban restructuring, especially when we
are dealing with multiracial interactions,
such as Hispanics, Asians, and blacks in
Los Angeles.
Population composition change, redis-
tributional effects, and preference have
This content downloaded from 143.106.201.10 on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:56:04 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
112 E C O N oM I c GE O GRAPHY
TABLE 2
SUM M ARY O F RE C E N T N E I GHBO RHO O D PRE FE RE N C E STUDI E S'
All black M ostly Half & M ostly All white
black half white
Black preferences
N ational 1978 5.0% 7.0% 85.0% 3.0% ***
Detroit' *1977 12.0% 14.0% 62.0% 10.0%
Kansas C ity 1982 4.0% 3.0% 87.0% 6.0% ***
C incinnati 1983 3.0% 4.0% 78.0% 15.0% ***
M ilwaukee 1984 1.0% 21.0% 67.0% 9.0% 2.0%
White preferences
N ational 1978 *** 1.0% 36.0% 29.0% 34.0%
Kansas C ity 1982 * 0.0% 25.0% 39.0% 36.0%
C incinnati 1983 *** 0.0% 36.0% 37.0% 26.0%
M ilwaukee 1984 0.0% 2.0% 26.0% 52.0% 22.0%
'
N o difference responses allocated proportionately to other choices.
'
C entral cities only; suburbs excluded.
***N ot asked.
Sources: N ational and Detroit studies, Armor v. N ix, 1)efendant's E xhibit N o. 22 prepared by David J. Armor; Kansas
C ity study from surveys by W. A. V. C lark and David J. Armor for Jenkins v. State of M issouri et al.; C incinnati study from
survey by W. A. V. C lark for Bronson v. Board of E ducation of the C ity School District of the C ity of C incinnati et al.;
M ilwaukee Survey by W. A. V. C lark for Board of School Directors of the C ity of M ilwaukee v. Anthony S. E arl et al.
important impacts on the structure of the
city. As we have shown elsewhere, there
are distinct differences in the links be-
tween central cities and suburbs, and
these can be related to the age and eco-
nomic viability of cities [46]. Thus, the
spatial patterning is the result of a com-
plex interplay of economic and demo-
graphic forces. At the intermediate level,
there are powerful demographic forces
which directly shape the urban structure.
The exact nature of that shaping remains
only partially explored. Specifically, de-
cisions regarding fertility, household
composition, and workforce participa-
tion have spatial implications for cities
and suburbs. But, the actual way in which
the spatial outcomes are expressed is not
independent of state intervention.
M anaged population control, either
indirectly by zoning and planning or
directly through assisted and public hous-
ing, has been explored by Johnston [34]
for a wide range of state interventions
and specifically for housing mobility in-
terventions by C lark and M oore [14]. The
way in which the judiciary has influenced
urban processes and, in turn, urban struc-
ture, via intervention, raises a number of
questions relevant to discussions of spa-
tial change (restructuring), especially
changes in the patterns of racial and eth-
nic groups [10]. Aparticularly approp-
rate context for this discussion is the
analysis of school desegregation. Such an
analysis is necessarily a study of racial and
ethnic patterns, because it is the fact of
separation which has increasingly be-
come the focus of litigation to desegre-
gate schools. I t is also a study of mobility,
because 17-20% of all U.S. households
move each year [38], and a large number
of these households (although a declining
number) have children. There are ob-
vious implications for the spatial struc-
ture of the city.
I t is important to note that social pro-
grams, interventions, and policies de-
velop in very complex circumstances.
O nly in part are they designed to change
the conditions that are perceived as prob-
lems. They reflect compromises between
various groups, and the compromises are
the result of the interplay of changing
political foci. I t is a truism that programs
and policies change over time, and they
are reflective of broad social concerns.
But, interventions which directly involve
mobility or migration must recognize an
important additional factor-mobility
and migration are still the accepted way
of improving one's circumstances of ful-
filling the "dream" of upward mobility.
Although there are obvious constraints
across social classes by race and for
different ethnic groups (especially those
This content downloaded from 143.106.201.10 on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:56:04 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
URBAN RE STRUC TURI N G 113
that relate to the accessibility to financial
resources), whether in Japan, E urope, or
N orth America, relocation behavior often
offers individuals the chances to move up,
or if not up, at least out. At the same time,
household decisions are constrained,
mediated, and satisfied by institutions
and groups who operate in housing and
labor markets. And, finally, we must
always be conscious that that dynamic is
played out in specific urban settings.
AC O M M E N TARY O N URBAN
RE STRUC TURI N G
Soja et al. [64] have argued that Los
Angeles is a prototypical example of
urban restructuring in which the social
and economic geography of the region
has been completely modified by the
process of urban restructuring. The or-
ganization of the labor process, the com-
position of the work force, the location of
industry, the sectorial distribution of
employment, and the organization of the
working class have led to deepening pov-
erty and unemployment, industrial sweat-
shops, and the intensification of ethnic
and racial segregation [64, p. 195]. These
broad statements warrant closer examina-
tion.
That there has been industrial dispersal
and change in the distribution of industry
is without question [30]. The growth of
industry along with the dispersal of popu-
lation to the outlying counties is certainly
unexceptional (see Berry and Dahmann
[2] for a national commentary). I n a
detailed study of Los Angeles, Gordon et
al. [30] not only provide a careful and a
comprehensive understanding of the in-
teraction between population and em-
ployment but indicate the importance of
a polycentric model in understanding
those relationships. Perhaps most impor-
tantly, they point out the possibility that
the "restructuring" is more conducive to
short work trips than the old monocentric
city and reflects an urban structural
change, which, in turn, represents both
economic and social changes.
The region has changed its composi-
tional character from being largely fo-
cused on one or two highly specialized
industrial activities (especially aircraft
production) to a more diversified one.
This spatial diversification of manufac-
turing is a function of the relative newness
of its industrial base [49]. Although ques-
tions can be raised about that industrial
change, the focus of this commentary is
on the social changes in the region. The
suggestions of increasing ghettoization,
of the intensification of ethnic and racial
segregation, and increasing homelessness
[64, p. 221] need to be addressed in some
detail.
There have certainly been changes in
the size and distribution of racial and eth-
nic groups in Southern C alifornia (Fig-
ures 3 and 4, Table 3). There were only
small ethnic populations in Los Angeles at
the time of the S econd World War (Table
3). Although there has always been a
Spanish heritage in the Southern C alifor-
nia Region, the actual numbers were less
than quarter a million until the 1940s, and
at the same time, there were less than
100,000 blacks (Table 3). The growth of
both black and Hispanic populations was
a post-1960 phenomenon, but whereas
between 1970 and 1980 the black popula-
TABLE 3
E THN I C AN D RAC I AL C HARAC TE RI STI C S FO RLO S AN GE LE S C O UN TY: 1940-1980 (I N THO USAN DS)
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
N umber % N umber % N umber % N umber % N umber %
Anglo
2524.7 90.6 3582.9 86.3 4770.7 79.0 4640.7 65.9 3978.0 53.2
HispaniC
142.1 5.1 286.5 6.9 597.8 9.9 1093.0 18.1 2063.8 27.6
Black 75.2 2.7 220.0 5.3 531.4 8.8 724.7 12.0 942.2 12.6
Asian' 43.6 1.6 62.3 1.5 138.9 2.3 187.2 3.1 478.6 6.4
Total 2785.6 100.0 4151.7 100.0 6038.8 100.0 7042.0 100.0 7477.5 100.0
'C ontains a small number of American I ndian and other ethnic enumerations.
Source: C ommunity Analysis Bureau (1977), U.S. Bureau of the C ensus (1983).
This content downloaded from 143.106.201.10 on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:56:04 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
114
E C O N O M I C
GE O GRAPHY
L O S AN GE L E S SAN BE RN ARDI N O
San Fernando
N D
p
Beverly Hills Downtown 0
0 1 20 30 40N
U ~ ~ O SAN GE LSSN BRADO
\
4 ~~~~Anaheim
San FernoSanta Ana
PE RC E N T
BLAC K,1950 Long Beach
50 +
S
10
-
50\/
< 10
\S -
0 10 20 30 40
N D
M I LE S
Fig\ 3.isribtinobacko
LO S AN GE LE S
1AN
BE RN ARDI N O
\San Fernando
4
~~~~~Beverly HilsO "Dow town
/
$ $ tJO R ~AN GE
S ~~~~~Santa Ana
|
PE RC E N T
BLAC K, 1980
Lon Beach\
~
50t
\+t
10
-
50\/
| C z <~~1<10
0 10 20 30
40\/
F I 1- 1 ------1
X ~~~~N D
M I LE S
Fig. 3. Distribution of black
households, 1950 and 1980.
This content downloaded from 143.106.201.10 on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:56:04 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
URBAN RE STRUC TURI N G 115
LO S AN GE LE S SAN BE RN ARDI N O
San Fernando
N D 0
Beverly Hills
Downtown
<~~~
* go
I N
Santa M onica \
J
RI VE RSI DE
L AN GE L S
\
g ~~~~~Anaheim \
San FenanoSanta
Ana
PE RC E N T
HI SPAN I C B
1950
Long Deacht
m 50 +
>
m
10
-
50X/
<
910X
0 10 20 30 40 N D
I I I N D
M I LE S
\ S an Fernan
Jo.::"'...
|
I - | - i
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.......I ..
M I LE S~~
..
.........
Fig. 4. Distributions of Hispanic households, 1950 and 1980. The Hispanic data for 1950 are estimates
based on the distribution of non-white population.
This content downloaded from 143.106.201.10 on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:56:04 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
116 E C O N O M I C GE O GRAPHY
tion essentially stabilized (in percentage
terms) and has remained separated from
the rest of the population, the Hispanic
population was at the same time concen-
trated and dispersed throughout the re-
gion. The recency of both the Spanish
and Asian immigration is overwhelming.
When we analyze specific measures of
separation, it is clear that there are widely
varying levels of segregation by race.
(Table 4). The high level of separation
between Asian and black populations and
Hispanic and black populations is nota-
TABLE 4
I N DI C E S O F DI SSI M I LARI TYFO RE THN I C AN D RAC I AL GRO UPS I N
LO S AN GE LE S C O UN TY: E : 89.
Anglo I lis)anic Black
L.A. C ounty
H1isp)anic
56.9
Black 80.7 72.4
Asian 49.2 53.7 83.5
L.A. C ity
I lis)anic 62.2
Black 84.9 72.7
Asian 51.7 44.2 78.1
O utside L.A. C ity
I liS)aniC 53.3
Black 76.9 72.0
Asian 48.9 64.9 91.0
Source: Garcia [26].
ble. I ndeed, the levels of separation for
blacks and Hispanics is comparable to
that between blacks and whites. These
measures of segregation have been de-
clining for blacks but have increased
slightly for Hispanics (Table 5). The lat-
ter may be due to differing census defini-
tions, but the number of tracts with some
Hispanics almost doubled between 1970
and 1980. I n addition, the data on His-
panic growth outside the city of Los
TABLE 5
LO S AN GE LE S SC HO O L DI STRI C T I N DI C E S O F SE PARATI O N ,
1970-1980.
Dissimilarity E xposure
1970 white v. minority 0.64 0.50
white v. black 0.92 0.83
white v. Hispanic 0.54 0.39
1980 white v. minority 0.63 0.47
white v. black 0.85 0.77
white v. Hispanic 0.63 0.47
Angeles emphasize the aggregate size
and spatial dispersion effects of Hispanics
(Table 6).
E ven these cursory comments suggest
that the view of increasing ghettoization
is simplistic at best. M oreover, the con-
nection between the division of labor and
social outcomes is unclear. There is a long
history of studies of in-migration and
urban ecology, and Garcia [27] has sug-
gested that the early ecological descrip-
tions still have validity in understanding
contemporary immigration patterns. I n
TABLE 6
PE RC E N TAGE S O F HI SPAN I C S I N SE LE C TE D ARE AS O UTSI DE THE LO S
AN GE LE S C I TYLI M I TS: 1960-1980.
1960 1970 1980
Alhambra 4.3 17.4 37.6
Azusa 17.5 35.3 42.3
Baldwin Park 8.7 30.0 58.1
Bell Gardens 2.2 19.7 64.3
C arson 7.8 18.3 23.3
C ity of C ommerce 41.0 69.0 85.0
C ompton 9.0 13.5 21.1
E ast Los Angeles 67.9 87.2 94.1
E l M onte 13.7 31.4 61.4
Hacienda freights 8.9 20.9 26.4
Huntington Park 4.5 35.9 80.7
La Puente 21.7 46.2 62.5
Lynwood 3.5 16.1 48.5
M ontebello 18.4 44.2 59.3
M onterey Park 11.6 18.1 38.8
N orwalk 15.0 25.7 40.1
Paramount 7.8 17.9 46.2
Pico Rivera 26.4 59.2 76.1
Pomona 9.2 16.3 30.1
Rosemead 20.0 34.8 57.4
San Gabriel 15.3 25.5 38.2
Los Angeles, recent arrivals are still over-
represented in central areas, and new
waves are more residentially segregated
from Anglos than older waves [27, p. 82].
The similarities of these descriptions of
Los Angeles with earlier descriptions of
C hicago are compelling. I n addition,
Garcia [27] and O liver and Johnson [50]
have shown that there are strong antago-
nisms between racial groups. To explain
these important social spatial dimensions
as a function of the workings of capital
and labor is to cloud rather than clarify
the nature of the evolution of spatial
This content downloaded from 143.106.201.10 on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:56:04 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
URBAN RE STRUC TURI N G 117
structure. C ertainly for Hispanics, there
does not appear to be a decline in inter-
group isolation (although changing cen-
sus definitions have made this difficult to
ascertain). I f anything, ethnic succession
appears to be at the base of Hispanic
developments in Los Angeles. Garcia ex-
plains the continuing high degree of Anglo
separation in terms of the size and geo-
graphical distributions of new immigrants,
the impact of high immigrant fertility,
and the out-migration of Anglos. As Table
3 indicates, there was a net gain of ap-
proximately ten Hispanics for every eight
Anglos who left the county. There is also
evidence of strong community-based re-
sistance to ethnic/racial influx, much of it
seemingly stemming from fears of status
loss if residential homogeneity is altered.
Surveys show that there are differences in
how different racial and ethnic groups
view each other (Table 7). I t is not possi-
ble to explore the implications of this
table in detail, but it emphasizes the low
ranking of recent refugee groups. What-
ever particular interpretations we place
on these rankings, they are another indi-
cation of the complex, multi-ethnic, in-
terpersonal and inter-group relationships
which have direct impacts on the spatial
patterning of the metropolitan area.
TABLE 7
FE E LI N GS TO WARD DI FFE RE N T E THN I C AN D RAC I AL GRO UPS.
Southern
Total C alifornia
Very favorable 100.0 1)0.0
E nglish descent 75.3 76.6
I rish 72.7 74.4
American I ndian 73.6 72.8
Germian American 70.5 70.8
Blacks 67.3 67.5
C hinese 63.5 66.1
M exican American 63.5 65.9
Puerto Rican 56.5 58.1
C uban 53.1 55.3
Vietnamese 56.1 55.1
Total 1378 96
*
Data are from a national probability salmlple
of Anglo
and black respondents. Southern C alifornia
respondents
resided in Los Angeles and San D)iego.
Source: C ardoza et al. [5].
I n a multi-ethnic situation with increas-
ing.inrmigration, it is appropriate to argue
that the significant immigration and dem-
ographic changes in the Los Angeles
region are at least as much a result of
micro, individual decision making as they
are a result of the changes in global levels
of economic position. Studies of immi-
gration into Los Angeles indicate quite
clearly that a large amount of the immi-
gration of Asians, I ranians, and E l Sal-
vadorans is of a political nature [16;
27].
The immigration of M exicans, on the
other hand, may be of an economic
nature, generated by the economic cycles
in M exico [35].
What I have suggested so far is the
complexity of restructuring. To further
illustrate its multifaceted character, its
place-specific form, and place-specific
responses to interventions, we can exam-
ine the attempt to manage populations.
The instance is the attempt to integrate
school populations via mandatory bus-
ing. The implicit agenda of such an inter-
vention is not just racial balancing through-
out the school system but the potential
residential integration which might fol-
low that mixing [69]. The actual manda-
tory busing occurred for three years be-
tween 1978 and 1981. For a discussion of
the logic of its implementation, see C lark
[11].
The Los Angeles Unified School Dis-
trict is slightly larger than the city of Los
Angeles and is about 3.5 million people
(Figure 5). The school system is a reflec-
tion of the broader population processes
in the county, modified by differential
fertility levels and white flight. Between
1970 and 1984, public school enrollment
dropped from approximately 650,000 to
450,000. (Presently, there are signs that
enrollment is increasing, and while there
were numerous school closings in the late
1970s, Los Angeles now has at least two-
dozen schools on a year-round basis.)
There was a steady decline year by year
in total enrollment. However, aggregate
numbers hide the ethnic shift. There was
a steep decline in the white population
but a countering increase in the Hispanic
This content downloaded from 143.106.201.10 on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:56:04 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
118 E C O N O M I C GE O GRAPHY
\. . .
...........
.'' '. '.
'
.
......
.............."'..'' '' . ..- .....
X..", ,--.............'
''"'''"\
. . . . . . . :... . . . . . .
..-.....................................
.............. .. . .....
',. "' .'..-'" ..-." ' .-" -" " '' -''-..'.. ............................ . .. . . ..
,,," ,.,,-.', ,,'...', ',.'',.,,'-''..'.. ..........................
. .
....... . . . . .
~~~~~~~~................. ..... ......_
,,
,
,~~~~~~~~~~.,......,,i.;.;;.... ....
r ,..,. , .,,, , .......
SC HO O L
.....
.
............. ,........,....
L........
C I T
........ ......
--
.A.SC O L. I .......... .<..........
..........
BO UN DARY......I ...;
.
*
\
.......g... 5. T o e SD..t
.............~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.. . . . .
RAC I AL/E THN I C ~ ......... ...
C O N C E N TRATI O N S......
....... ........
......
I N THE LO S
AN GE LE S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........
SC HO O L DI STRI C T~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...........
Z > 80%
WHI TE ~~x...........
>~~~~~~~~~.........
..0%....HI S...PAN I C --
................
........... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
C
.............. ... ... ......... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~0
>60%
BLAC K~~~~~.............
........... ........ ..... .......... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
5
........ ... ...... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
L.A. C I TY
LI M I TS~~~~~~~~~~~~.... ... ...
.....
....................
.... : :
....
........ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0
L.A.......
........
SC HO O L......
DI STRI C T BO UN D
RY...
.......... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Fig. 5. The Los Angeles School District and its ethnic compos.t.on.in.1980.
This content downloaded from 143.106.201.10 on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:56:04 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
URBAN RE STRUC TURI N G
119
population. Part of the decline in white
enrollments is related to differential out-
migration (Table 8). I n fact, most of the
very recent increase in total enrollment
(1985-1986) is due to changes in the
numbers of Hispanics and Asians (Figure
6). While the public enrollment declined,
private enrollment increased (part of the
white flight from the public school sys-
tem). The total numbers went from ap-
proximately 85,000 to 107,000 in the period
1974-1982. Private school enrollment is
not broken down by race, but it is largely
white. The demographic process of de-
clining school enrollments, principally
declining white enrollments, is related to
the decline in the number of children of
school age. The issue is whether these
losses were unusually large during the
years of intervention and whether there
were spatial implications of the interven-
tion.
TABLE 8
PO PULATI O N RE LO C ATI O N I N SO UTHE RN C ALI FO RN I A, 1975-1980
N E T M I GRATI O N O F I I O USE HO LDS WI THC HI LDRE N ,
Destination
Surrounding Rest of
L.A. C ounty C ounties State
O rigin [lisp. +11720 +1800 +1640
White +6560 +7720 t5120
L.A. C ity Black +7840 +840 -8405
Source: Public Use Tapes, 1980.
The enrollment losses and gains show
relatively steady changes over time.
However, an analysis of rates of loss and
gain are more informative with respect to
an analysis of interventions. Diagrams of
rates of loss and gain show that in the
early 1970s rates of white enrollment loss
were in the range of five to ten percent,
but during the interval of mandatory
reassignment, the loss rates of white stu-
dents exceeded 15 percent in some years
330
|N s O ther,'
C O ) 280d
o
N White
o N s,,
0
3 0
Z ."" \\
3 1B8l0a|ck4 " \-
Z 1
3 0
- __
80-
0 1-
-- | 1 1 1
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84
YE AR
Fig. 6. Total pupil enrollment in the Los Angeles school system.
This content downloaded from 143.106.201.10 on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:56:04 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
120 E C O N oM I c GE O GRAPHY
(Figure 7). As the graphs show, while
Hispanics increased in enrollment as well
as percent, whites declined in numbers,
and the rates of loss were greatest during
the period 1978-81. These district-wide
discussions of loss rates mask the changes
in specific regions. I n some regions and
schools, especially in the San Fernando
Valley (Figure 8) where there were man-
datory assignments to central black
schools, loss rates of 40% occurred.
There is little doubt that white losses
were exacerbated during the process of
mandatory busing. This finding is similar
to the finding of several other authors
who have examined white enrollment
change [59]. What was the effect on the
levels of integration in the system? The
graphs indicate that the indices for all
schools changed from dissimilarity and
exposure levels of approximately 0.7 to
0.6 and from 0.6 to 0.3 (Figure 9). Thus,
there was a ten percent drop in the dissim-
ilarity index, and an almost 30 percent
drop in the exposure index. Acloser
comparison of the white versus minority
(Hispanic, black, and Asian) and white
versus black indices suggests that the lev-
els of separation decreased more in the
white versus Hispanic case than in the
white versus black. This suggests that
despite the program of mandatory reas-
signment of black students, there is greater
integration of Hispanics. This latter situa-
tion has arisen because of the greater
geographic dispersal of Hispanic house-
15-
10-
I Li 444
'+., j bO ther
5.
z 5 A., ,.'
'......'
"9'''''~~~~~~~~~4
....
,> .oA. . . . .
. I , , , .
o 0
-
A
\ /
\Black
wL ]
-5
-0 \White
\/
-15-
-20-
-
2 5
- 1 - , , X - I ,
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84
YE AR
Fig. 7. E nrollment change in the total school
system,
This content downloaded from 143.106.201.10 on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:56:04 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
URBAN RE STRUC TURI N G 121
100
80/
WD 60 | Black
60
z
O ther
o 40
W
20
0
White\ / I
-40
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
Fig. 8. E nrollment in the grade schools in the San Fernando Valley.
0.
95 4444
0.3
_ b Pal,_ X issimilarity
0.7
0.6- ,. .,.,.
0,5> *-"'-~~"..,,, d . *^\s-s-s---.. . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.4~~~~~~~~s, E xposure
0.-3
............
0.1 02-
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84
Fig. 9. I ndices of separation (segregation) for all schools: (a) dissimilarity index for black versus white, (b)
dissimilarity for white versus all minorities, (c) exposure index for black versus white, (d) exposure
index for
whites versus all minorities.
This content downloaded from 143.106.201.10 on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:56:04 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
122
E C O N O M I C GE O GRAPHY
holds. (See M assey and Denton [42] on
the relation of assimilation to levels of
separation.)
What can we conclude from the results
of this case study? I believe it demon-
strates the high level of complexity in spa-
tial social change, and that even in the
instances of mandated/managed inter-
vention, the spatial changes are not clearly
related to managed objectives. I n addi-
tion, it appears that the aim of residential
integration (for blacks) has not occurred
to any marked extent. The white re-
sponses, via differential out-migration
and private school enrollment, reveal the
complexity of individual responses.
C O N C LUSI O N
This paper began with a discussion of
urban restructuring, which has been a
focus for those who have sought to link
spatial outcomes to changes in industrial
organization. The paper has suggested
that the focus has led to a situation in
which the concern for labor has tended to
dominate the issues related to understand-
ing economic and social processes in
space. The notion that (suddenly) we are
globally interconnected, and that there is
an international division of labor which
did not exist previously, requires consid-
erably more development if it is to be an
organizing theory for human geography
[57].
How the built environment is continu-
ally fashioned and refashioned is the cen-
tral concern of the geographic enterprise,
or at least that part of the geographic
enterprise that is focused on cities and
urban regions. By extension, it is also con-
cerned with the associated social patterns
that arise from the creation of the built
environment. The creation of that built
environment is the result of two forces:
the forces of institutions and the forces of
individuals. I t is perhaps reasserting the
obvious to postulate that investigations at
both the micro and macro levels are
necessary if we are to fully understand
the complexity of the urban environment.
While it is true that micro-social analysis
will not yield an understanding of broad
social change, neither will the macro insti-
tutional forces explain the myriad subtle
processes of micro behavioral decision
making. I t is this micro/macro concern
that must continue to drive our attempts
to understand both individual behavior
and macro policy issues [12].
Anumber of authors, including John-
ston [34] and Jackson [33] have empha-
sized the role of institutional intervention
in influencing the social patterns within
the built environment. I n particular,
Johnston has argued that zoning and fiscal
measures have been used to achieve and
maintain desired levels of separation, but
the issue here is how to assess impacts
versus existence. That zoning and fiscal
measures existed is indisputable, but the
effects are less readily assessed.
E ven those most committed to utilizing
the neo-M arxist urban restructuring ap-
proach would admit that people are not
simply manipulated by the larger society.
I f the above is true, we are led to an
analytical approach which gives equality
if not primary emphasis to studies of
demographic processes. The notions of a
restructuring perspective which empha-
sizes deindustrialization and a new func-
tional hierarchy and a deconcentration or
demographic perspective which focuses
on residential location preferences has
also been suggested by Frey [25]. His
empirical analysis offers support for the
latter view. The demographic drives,
especially those related to household forma-
tion, childbearing, and men's and wom-
en's roles in society will continue to
change in the late twentieth century.
They are powerful explanatory concepts
which can stand as intermediate-scale
explanatory approaches to understand-
ing the spatial organization of society.
LI TE RATURE C I TE D
1. Berry, B. J. L. The O pen Housing Question:
Race and Housing in C hicago 1966-1976. C am-
bridge, M A: Ballinger, 1979.
This content downloaded from 143.106.201.10 on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:56:04 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
URBAN RE STRUC TURI N G 123
2. Berry, B. J. L. and 1). C . Dahmann. "Population
Distribution in the United States in the 1970s,"
Population Redistribution and Public Policy.
E dited by B. J. L. Berry and L. P. Silverman.
Washington 1).C .: N ational Academy of Sci-
ences, 1980.
3. Bluestone, B. and B. Harrison. The De-indus-
trialization of America. N ew York: Basic Books,
1982.
4. Bradbury, J. H. "Regional and I ndustrial Re-
structuring Processes in the N ew I nternational
Division of Labor," Progress in Human Geog-
raphy, 9 (1985), pp. 38-63.
5. C ardoza, D., L. Huddy, and D. 0. Sears. The
Symbolic Attitudes Study: Public Attitudes
Toward Bilingual E ducation. Technical Report
R-21. Los Alamitos, C A: C enter for Bilingual
E ducation, 1984.
6. C lark, G. L. I nterregional M igration, N ational
Policy, and Social Justice, Totowa, N J: Allen-
held, 1983.
7. C lark, G. L., Judges and the C ities. C hicago:
University of C hicago Press, 1985.
8. C lark, G. L. and M . Dear. State Apparatus:
Structures and Language of Legitimacy. Lon-
don: George Allen and Unwin, 1984.
9. C lark, W. A. V. "Residential M obility and
N eighborhood C hange: Some I mplications for
Racial Residential Segregation," Urban Geog-
raphy, 1 (1980), pp. 95-117.
10. C lark, W. A. V. "Judicial I ntervention, Busing,
and Local Residential C hange," Geography and
the Urban E nvironment. E dited by D. Herbert
and R. J. Johnston, 1984.
11. C lark, W. A. V. "Residential Segregation in
American C ities: AReview and I nterpretation,"
Population Research and Policy Review, 5
(1986), pp. 95-127.
12. C lark, W. A. V. Theory and Practice in Housing
M arket Research. Stockholm: Almqvist and
Wiksell, 1987.
13. C lark, W. A. V. "Recent Research on M igration
and M obility: AReview and I nterpretation,"
Progress in Planning, 18 (1982), pp. 1-56.
14. C lark, W. A. V. and E . G. M oore. "Residential
M obility and Public Programs: C urrent Gaps
Between Theory and Practice," Journal of Social
I ssues, 38 (1982), pp. 35-50.
15. C oale, A. J. "The History of the Human Popula-
tion," Scientific American, 231 (1974), pp.41-51.
16. Desbarats, J. "Thai M igration to Los Angeles,"
Geographical Review, 69 (1979), pp. 302-18.
17. Dickens, P., et al. Housing States and Localities.
London: M ethuen, 1985.
18. E asterlin, R. Population and E conomic C hange
in Developing C ountries. C hicago: University
of C hicago Press, 1980.
19. E hrlich, P. R. and A. E hrlich. Population Re-
sources and E nvironment. San Francisco: Free-
man, 1974.
20. Farley, R. "The Residential Segregation of
Blacks from Whites: Trends, C auses, and C onse-
quences," I ssues in Housing Discrimination,
(1985), pp. 14-28.
21. Fincher, R. "Social Theory and the Future of
Urban Geography," Professional Geography,
39 (1987), pp. 9-12.
22. Fotheringhan, S. "AN ew Set of Spatial I nterac-
tion M odels: The Theory of C ompeting Desti-
nations," E nvironment and Planning A, 15
(1983), pp. 15-36.
23. Frey, W. "C entral C ity White Flight: Racial and
N on-Racial C auses," American Sociological
Review, 44 (1979), 425-48.
24. Frey, W. "M over Destination Selectivity and
the C hanging Suburbanization of M etropolitan
Whites and Blacks," Demography, 22 (1985),
223-43.
25. Frey, W. "M igration and Depopulation of the
M etropolis: Regional Restructuring or Rural
Renaissance," American Sociological Review,
52 (1987), pp. 240-57.
26. Garcia, P. "I mmigration I ssues in Urban E col-
ogy: The C ase of Los Angeles," Urban E thnicity
in the United States: N ew I mmigrants and O ld
M inorities. E dited by L. M aldonado and
J. M oore. Sage Publications, Urban Affairs,
Annual Reviews, Volume 29, (1985), pp.73-100.
27. Garcia, P. "I mmigration and Language I ssues in
Urban E cology: The C ase of the Los Angeles
Area." Technical Report, Los Alamitos, C A:
N ational C enter for Bilingual Research, 1985.
28. Golant, S. "Spatial C ontext of Residential M oves
by E lderly Persons," I nternational Journal on
Aging and the E nvironment, 8 (1977-1978), pp.
279-89.
29. Golledge, R. G., L. A. Brown, and F. William-
son. "Behavioral Approaches in Geography: A
Review," The Australian Geographer, 12 (1972),
pp. 59-79.
30. Gordon, P., H. W. Richardson, and H. L. Wong.
"The Distribution of Population and E mploy-
ment in a Polycentric C ity: The C ase of Los
Angeles," E nvironment and Planning A, 18
(1986), pp. 161-73.
31. Greenwood, M . M igration and E conomic
Growth in the United States. N ew York: Aca-
demic Press. 1982.
This content downloaded from 143.106.201.10 on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:56:04 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
124 E C O N O M ic GE O GRAPHY
32. Harris, R. "APolitical C hameleon: C lass Segre-
gation in Kingston, O ntario, 1961-1976," Annals,
Association of American Geographers, 74 (1984),
pp. 454-76.
33. Jackson, P. "Social Geography: Race, and Ra-
cisiss," Progress in Human Geography, 9 (1985),
pp. 99-108.
34. Johnston, R. J. Residential Segregation, The
State and C onstitutional C onflict in American
Urban Areas. London: Academic Press, 1984.
35. J ones, Ri. C . Patterns of Undocumrnented M igra-
tion: M exico and the United Staies. Totowa, N J:
Rowmnan and Allenheld, 1984.
36. Kreckel, R. "Unequal O pportunity Structure
and Labour M arket Segmentation," Sociology,
14 (1980), pp. 525-50.
37. Ley, 1). "Urban Structure and Urban Restruc-
turing," Urban Geography. 7 (1986), pp. 530-35.
38. Long, L. The Geographical M obility of Ameri-
cans: An I nternational C omparison. U.S. Dept.
of C onsinerce, Bureau of the C ensus, Popula-
tion Reports Special Study Services, 64 (1978).
39. M aldonado, L. and J. M oore. Urban E thnicity
in the United States: N ew I mmigrants and O ld
M inorities. Sage Publications, Urban Affairs,
Annual Reviews, Volume 29, 1985.
40. M artin, R. L. "Getting the Labor M arket into
Geographical Perspective," E nvironment and
Planning A, 18 (1986), pp. 569-72.
41. M assey, 1). S. Spatial Division of Labor: Social
Structures and the Geography of Production.
London: M ethuen, 1984.
42. M assey, D. S. and N . Denton. "Spatial Assimila-
tion as a Socio-E conomic O utcome," American
Sociological Review, 50 (1985), pp. 94-106.
43. M cC arthy, K. Qs and As About the Future of the
Three Rs: ADemographer's Perspective. Santa
M onica, C A: Rand C orporation, P. 6972, 1984.
44. M cKinney, S. and A. B. Schnare. Trends in
Residential Segregation by Race, 1960-1980.
Washington, lD.C .: The Urban I nstitute, 1986.
45. M oore, E . G. "M obility I ntention and Subse-
quent Relocation," Urban Geography, 7 (1986),
pp. 497-514.
46. M oore, E . G. and .A. V. C lark. "Stable Struc-
ture and Local Variation: AC omparison of
Household Flows in Four M etropolitan Areas,"
Urban Studies, 23 (1985), pp. 185-96.
47. M orrill, R. The Spatial O rgarisatiorn of Society.
Belmont, C A: Wadsworth, 1970.
48. M orrill, R. "Review of I nternational M igration,
N ational Policy and Social Justice," E conomic
Geography, 60 (1984), pp. 253.
49. N elson, H. J. and W. A. V. C lark. Los Angeles:
The M etropolitan E xperience. C ambridge, M A:
Ballinger, 1974.
50. O liver, M . and J. Johnson. "I nterethnic C onflict
in an Urban Ghetto: The C ase of Blacks and
Latinos," Research, Social M ovements, C on-
flict, and C hange. E dited by R. L. Radcliffe.
N ew York: JAI , 1986.
51. Pahl, R. Whose C ity. London: Penguin 1975.
52. Piore, M . J. and C . F. Sabel. The Second I ndus-
trial Divide. N ew York: Basic Books, 1984.
53. Plane, D. M igration Space: Doubly C onstrained
Gravity M odel M apping of Relative I nterstate
Separation," Annals, Association of American
Geographers, 74 (1984), pp. 244-56.
54. Pratt, G. "C lass Analysis and Urban Domestic
Property: AC ritical Re-examination," I nterna-
tional Journal of Urban and Regional Research,
6 (1980), pp. 481-502.
55. Pratt, G. and S. Hanson. "Gender, C lass and
Space,"' forthcoming, E nvironment and Planning
D, Society and Space, 1988.
56. Pred, A. Behavior and Location. University of
Lund, Lund Studies in Geography, Gleerup,
1967.
57. Rees, J. "E ditorial: What Happened to M acro-
economics," E nvironment and Planning A, 19
(1987), pp. 139-41.
58. Rogers, A. I ntroduction to M ultiregional M ath-
ematical Demography. N ew York: Wiley, 1975.
59. Rossell, C . AReview of the E mpirical Research
in Desegregation. I nstitute for Public Policy
Studies, Vanderbilt University, N ashville, Ten-
nessee, 1981.
60. Sack, R. "Geography, Geometry, and E xplana-
tion," Annals, Association of American Geog-
raphers, 62 (1972), pp. 61-78.
61. Scott, A. and M . Storper. Production Work and
Territory. Winchester, M A: George Allen and
Unwin, 1986.
62. Schelling, T. M icroeconomics and M acrobe-
havior. N ew York: W. W. N orton and C om-
pany, 1978.
63. Schnare, A. B. Residential Segregation by Race
and U.S. M etropolitan Areas: Analysis Across
C ities and O ver Time. Washington, D.C .: The
Urban I nstitute, 1977.
64. Soja, E ., R. M orales, and G. Wolff. "Urban Re-
structuring: An Analysis of Social and Spatial
C hange in Los Angeles," E conomic Geography,
60 (1984), pp. 195-230.
65. Stapleton, C . "Reformulation of the Family Life
This content downloaded from 143.106.201.10 on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:56:04 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
URBAN RE STRUC TURI N G 125
C ycle C oncept," E nvironment and Planning A,
12 (1980), pp. 1103-18.
66. Sternlieb, G., J. W. Hughes, and C . 0. Hughes.
Demographic Trends and E conomic Reality.
N ew Brunswick, N J: C enter for Urban Policy
Research, The State University of N ew Jersey,
1982.
67. Stewart, J. Q. and W. Warntz. "M acrogeog-
raphy and Social Science," Geographical Re-
view, 48 (1958), pp. 167-84.
68. Storper, M . and R. Walker. "The Spatial Di-
vision of Labor: Labor and the Location of
I ndustries," Sunbelt, Snowbelt, Urban Devel-
opment and Regional Restructuring. E dited by
L. Sawyers and W. Tabb. O xford, 1984.
69. Taeuber, K. housingg, Schools, and I ncremen-
tal Segregative E ffects," Annals AAPSS,
441
(1979), pp.
157-67.
70. Taeuber, K., F. M onfort, and P. M assey. "The
Trend in M etropolitan Racial Residential Seg-
regation," paper read to Population Association
of America, 1984.
71. Van Valey, T. L., W. C . Roof, and J. Wilcox.
"Trends in Residential Segregation: 1960's and
1970's," American Journal of' Sociology, 82
(1977), pp. 826-44.
72. Woods, R. and P. Rees. Population Structures
and M odels. London: George Allen and Unwin,
1986.
This content downloaded from 143.106.201.10 on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:56:04 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions