I advance six propositions regarding the features of urban decline processes that distinguish them from those in growing cities. First, they are demographically selective, as population losses are disproportionately comprised of more advantaged households. Second, they are dynamically nonlinear, as population changes exceed thresholds where socially problematic behaviors and residential disinvestment jump sharply. Third, they are asymmetrically scalable for technological, financial, physical, and political reasons. Fourth, they are minimally controlled by traditional land-use policies of zoning and building permits. Fifth, they are informally decentralized, as individuals and groups supplement the atrophied local public sector with “do it yourself” activities. Sixth, they are psychologically conservative, as residents try to conserve threatened physical, social, and psychological resources. The article synthesizes extant theory and evidence from multiple disciplines, although ultimately the propositions are advanced as working hypotheses commanding varying degrees of support, which collectively comprise a research agenda for further investigation.
No abstract is provided for this article.
This article explores immigrants' socioeconomic success consequential to their choice of neighborhood. We describe and analyze seven aspects of socioeconomic success during the 1980s for 14 immigrant groups in five metropolitan areas. Exposure indices measuring aspects of the census tracts in which these groups lived in 1980 are calculated and analyzed. Multiple regression explores the degree to which 1980s neighborhood context explains socioeconomic advances of pre-1980 immigrants during the 1980s, controlling for group starting position in 1980 and metropolitan area of residence.Findings support the notion that a neighborhood of poorly educated, welfare-assisted, nonworking residents retards educational, professional, and employment prospects of immigrants. We also find evidence that a higher incidence of residential exposure to other members of one's immigrant group leads to higher rates of poverty and, perhaps, lower gains in employment during the subsequent decade. These findings should be interpreted cautiously, however, because of data limitations, specification shortcomings, and ambiguities in interpreting causation.
