This article was downloaded by: [Central Michigan University]On: 20 October 2014, At: 06:32Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Sociological FocusPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usfo20

Pan-Latino Neighborhoods:Contemporary Myth or Reality?J. S. Onésimo Sandoval a & Bienvenido Ruiz aa Saint Louis University , USAb Northwestern University , USAPublished online: 19 Nov 2012.

To cite this article: J. S. Onésimo Sandoval & Bienvenido Ruiz (2011) Pan-LatinoNeighborhoods: Contemporary Myth or Reality?, Sociological Focus, 44:4, 295-313, DOI:10.1080/00380237.2011.10571400

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2011.10571400

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Pan-Latino Neighborhoods:Contemporary Myth or Reality?

j. S. On/sima Sandoval"Saint louisUniversity

Bienoenido Ruiz"Northwestern University

Building upon recent theoretical developments in pan-ethnic research, thisarticle explores Latino neighborhood diversity for urban and nonurbanLatino-majority neighborhoods from 1980, 1990, and 2000. We measuredLatino neighborhood diversity using the Theil entropy score for four Latinogroups: Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and all other Latinos. The evi­dence points to: (1) a small increase in Latino neighborhood diversity forthe period between 1980 and 2000; (2) a negative relationship betweenLatino concentration and Latino neighborhood diversity; and (3) a negativerelationship between Latino neighborhood diversity and the concentrationof economic disadvantages. The findings suggest that researchers need tothink carefully about how to empirically create a measure for a diverseLatino neighborhood and that they need to develop new surveys and ques­tions that ask Latino respondents about their motivations for moving into aneighborhood.

The growing diversity of the United States population has produced a renaissance inthe corpus of race scholarship. The increasing racial diversity found in many cities hasbecome a paramount interest for many scholars studying neighborhood change (Albaet al.1999; Charles 2003; Denton 1991; Ellen 2000; Espiritu 1993; Iceland 2004;Lobo, Flores, and Salvo 2002; Maly 2005; Martin 2007; Nyden, Maly, and Lukehart1997). One of the primary forces that has augmented racial diversity in Americancities is the growing Latino population (Guzman 2001; U.S. Bureau of the Census2003).' In response to the impressive growth of the U.S. Latino population, theLatino category has been incorporated into the analysis of neighborhood change toexamine the critical importance of Latinos in the urban landscape of race relations(Alba er al. 1999; Enchautegui 1997; Iceland 2004; Martin 2007; Nyden, Maly, andLukehart 1997; Sandoval, Johnson, and Tafoya 2002). The incorporation of theLatino category has paved the way for important findings regarding social inequality.However, treating "Latino" as a homogenous group is one analytical method forstudying neighborhood change. Researchers relying on a homogenous pan-ethnic

·E-mail: jsandov3@slu.edu; b-ruiz@northwestern.edu.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

32 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

296 SOCIOLOGICAL FOCUS

construct have ignored, for the most part, the differences that exist within the Latinocategory. These differences include, but, ofcourse, are not limited to identity, culture,language, and citizenship status.

For the past 30 years, Latinos have shaped and reshaped many neighborhoods.These neighborhoods have been included in analyses of social and economic differ­ences along with white and black majority neighborhoods with increasing frequency(Iceland 2004; Jargowsky 1997; Lobo, Flores, and Salvo 2002; Massey and Denton1987, 1989). However, the meaningfulness of the Latino category is problematic,since it refers to a heterogeneous group. Given the influence this category has on oursocial scientific knowledge, the diversity concealed by the pan-ethnic Latino categorymerits greater investigation by scholars concerned with neighborhood change andwith the impact of recent immigration on neighborhood change and stability.

This article examines the statistical diversity of Latino neighborhoods in theUnited States, building upon research that explored the theoretical relevance of pan­ethnicity (Espiritu 1993; Funkhouser 2000; Guest and Weed 1976; Kim 2005; Lobo,Flores, and Salvo 2002; Logan 2001; Logan, Zhang, and Alba 2002; McConnell andDelgado-Romero 2004). We explore the layering effect of ethniciry on race and viceversa to advance a better understanding of Latino neighborhood diversity. Our pri­mary interest is the intradiversity found in the Latino category that is often used insocial science research. More concretely, we assess how the distinct ethnic identity ofLatino neighborhoods, their socioeconomic characteristics, and regional locationinfluenced Latino neighborhood diversity. We first discuss the relevant research onthe relationship between pan-ethnicity and neighborhoods in the United States. Wethen outline the research questions and hypotheses that guided this study. Followingthis, we discuss the methodology and research design used to assess Latino neighbor­hood diversity. Finally, we present the empirical findings and summarize our results.

PAN-ETHNICITY AND RESIDENTIAL PATTERNSA clear concept of pan-ethnicity provides a unique angle from which to study thecomplex social construction of race. However, it is important to note that some schol­ars see no intellectual or analytical value to a pan-Latino construct (Gimenez 1989;Massey 1993). Nonetheless, other scholars continue to pursue a line of inquiry thatexplores how social boundaries can expand or contract at the intersection of race andethnicity (Okamoto 2003; Padilla 1985; Waters 1994, 1999). As the meanings ofeth­nicity shift and evolve under the influence of racial and pan-ethnic categories (Omiand Winant 1994), intraethnic social boundaries are becoming more important forscholars trying to understand and explain spatial social phenomena. 2

A growing literature has emerged regarding pan-ethniciry, especially among Asiansand Latinos in the United States (ltzigsohn and Dore-Cabral 2000; jones-Correa andLeal 1996; Lopez and Espiritu 1990; Moore 1990; Murguia 1991; Okamoto 2003;Padilla 1985). As Lopez and Espiritu noted in their seminal article, the burgeoningconcept of pan-ethnicity has become an important element in the study of race rela-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

32 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

PAN-LATINO NEIGHBORHOODS: CONTEMPORARY MYTH OR REALITY? 297

tions. They define pan-ethniciry as "the development of bridging organizations andthe generalization of solidarity among subgroups of ethnic collectivities that are oftenseen as homogeneous by outsiders" (Lopez and Espiritu 1990: 198). In another influ­ential study by Okamoto, she argued that identities are the primary force underlyingpan-ethnicity as an organizing principle of social relations and collective action(Okamoto 2003). A common thread in the theories of pan-ethniciry is the develop­ment of identities in a societal context that reduces the social distance berween het­erogeneous groups. One advantage of the concept of pan-ethniciry is that it connotessolidarity across ethnic groups while also acknowledging diversity. Some studies sug­gest that pan-ethnic identity is more elusive than the generalized use of the termwould suggest. For instance, jones-Correa and Leal (1996) found that a minority ofU.S. Latinos use the pan-ethnic term "Hispanic" or "Latino" for self-identification.The preferred terms of identification are based on national origin (i.e., Mexican,Puerto Rican, or Cuban).

Rather than being self-generating, group identities are (relproduced in the largercontext of intragroup relationships, especially when contact occurs with outgroups(Lopez and Espiritu 1990). As a result of these interactions, members of a group willfind common ground with some ethnic groups but feel more socially distant fromothers. One way of assessing the effect of intragroup distance is through residentialsettlement patterns. Distribution in the built environment has long been a tangibleside of social relations among ethnic and racial groups in American cities, a phenom­enon perhaps best exemplified by the persistent residential segregation berweenwhites and blacks. Pan-ethnic boundaries are another level of organization that hastraditionally operated in American cities, where residential patterns can be a functionof pan-ethnic solidarity across ethnic groups. In major American cities, for example,many Chinatowns are well known for their pan-ethnicity (Skeldon 1995). Kim andWhite (2010) identified a pan-ethnic effect that accounts for greater residential prox­imity among subgroups of a given pan-ethnic category (in their case, black, white,Native American, Asians, or Latino). This general indication of selective spatial dis­tribution offers a clue to investigate whether pan-ethnic residential spaces take theform of neighborhoods shared by heterogeneous Latino groups.

Latinos constitute the largest population grouped in a pan-ethnic category, com­posed of numerous ethnic groups, which are largely based on national origin.Ethnically mixed Latino neighborhoods have been described in qualitative studies(Padilla 1985; Pessar 1995; Ricourt and Danta 2002). However, when dealing withLatino ethnicity, demographers and other social scientists commonly rely on ahomogenous concept like Hispanic or Latino to mirror a race category, when con­trasted with whites and blacks. As a consequence, little attention has been paid to thediversity within the Latino population, except perhaps at the national level. By over­looking this layered identity of pan-ethnicity, even as scholars attempt to account forrace and ethnicity, they have missed the opportunity to identify the full implicationsof a Latino population that is growing in both size and diversity.

The demographic effects of Latino pan-ethniciry in neighborhoods remain largelyunexplored. Moving away from broad racial groupings, we focused our analysis on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

32 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

298 SOCIOLOGICAL FOCUS

Latino neighborhood diversity to study the dynamics of intragroup diversity. To ourknowledge, this is the first research project to statistically and longitudinally studyLatino neighborhood diversity. This approach could yield valuable insight into thedemographic changes taking place in many U.S. cities and the contribution that pan­Latino ethnicity makes to changes in neighborhood diversity.

RESEARCH QUESTIONWhile pan-ethnicity remains grounded on identity, we argue that space is a validdimension for analyzing pan-erhniciry, Unlike previous treatments of pan-ethnicity asa phenomenon of identity, we approach the subject through the spatial propinquitythat exists among discrete groups. We argue that the statistical diversity of Latinoneighborhoods is a promising research approach that decomposes the Latino categoryto examine the intradiversiry ofLatino neighborhoods among different ethnic groupsthat comprise the Latino population (Logan 2001; Suro 2002). In proposing thatpan-ethnicity is an outcome that can be observed demographically, our guiding ques­tion is a more rudimentary one: Do pan-Latino neighborhoods exist in the UnitedStates? We developed four hypotheses that framed our research design on Latinoneighborhood diversity.

Latino neighborhood diversity will increase over time.

Lopez and Espiritu have argued that pan-ethnic identity is a kind of group con­sciousness that develops with time for all social groups (Lopez and Espiritu 1990).Pan-ethnicity is not instantaneous or preexisting, bur rather emerges through aprocess subjected to time. In their study of pan-Latino identification, jones-Correaand Leal (1996) reason that Latino identity is a U.S. construct, because, although rel­atively rare, primary pan-ethnic self-identification (e.g., using a term like "Hispanic,""Latino," or "Hispano") is a function of youth, distance from the immigration expe­rience, and education. As heterogeneous groups come in contact with each other inthe neighborhood context and assimilate the idea of pan-ethnicity, solidarity andidentity starts to burgeon, and different Latino subpopulations may be more open toliving alongside members of other subpopulations. There is also evidence that a grow­ing number of U.S. Latinos are embracing pan-ethnic self-identification (Bada andCardenas 2009), a trend suggesting increased solidarity and decreasing social distanceacross ethnic lines.

Latino neighborhood diversity will decline as negative economic indicatorsincrease.

Neighborhoods provide residents with a sense ofcommunity, safety, and an oppor­tunity structure that offers social and economic options for their families. Whenneighborhoods no longer provide this essential function, residents will leave and thesocial and economic infrastructure will continue to decline to the point that theneighborhood itself will be viewed as a job-poor and resource-poor neighborhood.The concentration of negative economic disadvantages can lead to lower racial diver-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

32 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

PAN-LATINO NEIGHBORHOODS: CONTEMPORARY MYTH OR REALITY? 299

sity (Enchautegui 1997; Massey 1993; Massey and Fischer 1999; Massey and Fischer2000).

The ethnic/racial composition ofa neighborhood will be associated with Latinoneighborhood diversity.

Since Latino neighborhoods are connected to sociohistorical processes, Latinoneighborhood diversity has a distinct pattern, because residents' pan-ethnic identifi­cations are a product of their unique histories and ethnic/racial identities. Given thegreat variations between and within the Latino subgroups in class, citizenship status,language, generational status, regional origins, political orientations, and racializa­tion, some ethnic subpopulations may be more inclined to live near other Latino eth­nic subpopulations or in pan-ethnic Latino environments, rather than other ethnicsubpopulations (Bean and Tienda 1987; DeGenova and Ramos-Zayas 2003; Duany2003; Portes and Rumbaut 1996; Waters and Eschbach 1995).

Increasing concentration ofLatinos and immigration will contribute to Latinoneighborhood diversity.

Latino immigration has contributed to increasing diversity among the Latino popu­lation at the national level (Guzman 2001). The increase in Latino immigrants has thepotential to increase or decrease Latino neighborhood diversity. For example, if theimmigrants are Mexican and they settle in Mexican neighborhoods, this would lead toa decline in diversity. Diversity increases only if the Mexican immigrants settle in non­Mexican neighborhoods. If Latino immigrants settle in a finite number of neighbor­hoods, pan-ethnic affinity predicts that existing Latino neighborhoods (i.e., Mexicanmajority or Puerto Rican majority neighborhoods) will be their preferred destination.Therefore, Latino neighborhood diversity may be linked to immigration and the size ofthe Latino population in the neighborhood. This will hold true only if the immigrantsare ethnically different from the population living in the neighborhoods. Pan-ethnicaffinity also suggests that Latino in-migrants (i.e., those who relocate within the UnitedStates) may find Latino neighborhoods to be an attractive destination.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND DATAAs a demographic unit, the neighborhood provides a rich unit of analysis for ourstudy because of the availability ofdata on national origins for the Latino population.Traditionally, analyses of neighborhood-level change and diversity have beenrestricted to the white, black, Asian, and Latino categories. A simplistic concept ofLatino neighborhood is also problematic for studies ofethnic neighborhoods, becauseit obscures both the differences between many distinctively ethnic spaces (e.g., neigh­borhoods with a high concentration of a single national-origin group, like Mexicansor Puerto Ricans) and the Latino neighborhood diversity within those neighbor­hoods. By infusing the term "Latino" with pan-ethnic meaning, we attempt to pre­serve the validity of the term as a descriptor of intragroup affinities. We used thecensus tract as a proxy for neighborhood. The data used in this study came from the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

32 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(1)

300 SOCIOLOGICAL FOCUS

GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database, which contains U.S. Census data for1980, 1990, and 2000 (GeoLytics Inc. 2004).

The first step was to select all urban and nonurban Latino majority neighborhoodsfor the three time periods (i.e., census tracts where 50 percent or more of residentsself-identified ethnically as a Latinoj.I According to our calculations, 34.4 percent ofthe total Latino population in the United States in 1980 lived in the 1,832 Latinomajority neighborhoods; 39 percent of the total Latino population in 1990 lived inthe 2,814 Latino majority neighborhoods; and 42 percent of the total Latino popu­lation in 2000 lived in the 4,236 Latino majority neighborhoods.

The second step was to define and measure Latino neighborhood diversity. Thiswas a difficult task, because the U.S. Census used different ethnic categories for allthree time periods. For example, in 2000, 58.5 percent of all Hispanics were ofMexican origin or ancestry, 9.6 percent were Puerto Rican and 3.5 percent Cuban(Guzman 2001). The remaining 28 percent in the "other Hispanic" category includedthose individuals identified by national origin or ancestry as Dominican, Costa Rican,Guatemalan, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, other Central American, Argentinean,Bolivian, Chilean, Colombian, Ecuadorian, Paraguayan, Peruvian, Uruguayan,Venezuelan, other South American, Spaniard, and all other Hispanic. These latter cat­egories were not included in the public information files for 1980. Therefore, we col­lapsed the 1990 and 2000 ethnic categories to the four 1980 categories. This methodof using the same categories for the three time periods allowed us to be consistentwith our measurement. However, the disadvantage of this transformation is that welost information on Latino neighborhood diversity for 1990 and 2000. The "otherHispanic" category became the default category for the new Latino ethnic categoriesthat were used in the 1990 and 2000 census. Therefore, the "other Hispanic" cate­gory represented a larger share of Latino neighborhoods for each time period. In1980, there were 148 neighborhoods where the majority of the residents were classi­fied as "other Hispanic." In 1990, this number grew to 347, and by 2000,585 neigh­borhoods had "other Hispanic" majorities. The four categories we used were:Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and other Hispanic. Latino neighborhood diversitywas calculated using the Theil entropy score (Theil 1972):

E = i (log(P(ik))) * P(ik)

t r=1 log(n)

where E, is the diversity score for tract i, P(ik) is the proportion of the tract populationfor ethnic group k, and n is the total number of ethnic categories. Scores can rangefrom 0 to 1, where 0 means that one ethnic group lives in the census tract, which istherefore a completely homogeneous neighborhood. A score of 1 means that each eth­nic group has the same proportion in the census tract; therefore, it is a completelydiverse neighborhood.

Latino neighborhood diversity is subjected to many factors operating at the locallevel. We created several variables that measured the neighborhood's economic char­acteristics, its racial composition, social structure, and geography. In Table 1 we pro-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

32 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Tabl

e1.

Des

crip

tion

ofV

aria

bles

and

Dem

ogra

phic

Cha

ract

eris

tics

1980

(N:

1,83

2)19

90(N

:2,

814)

2000

(N:

4,23

6)m

ean

S.D.

mea

nS.

D.m

ean

S.D

.D

epen

dent

Varia

ble

Div

ersi

tysc

ore

0.28

90.

180

0.30

70.

196

0.42

30.

142

Econ

omic

Cha

ract

erist

icsLa

tino

pove

rtyra

te0.

298

0.14

20.

328

0.14

40.

280

0.12

3M

ean

Latin

oho

useh

old

inco

me

(x$1

0K)a

3.11

20.

832

2.43

70.

442

3.77

31.

139

Prop

ortio

nLa

tino

unem

ploy

ed0.

061

0.03

30.

094

0.03

90.

065

0.03

3Pr

opor

tion

Latin

oho

me

owne

rshi

p0.

412

0.27

20.

404

0.25

50.

433

0.25

1Pr

opor

tion

Latin

oco

llege

grad

uate

s0.

036

0.03

90.

044

0.04

70.

056

0.05

9La

tino

Racia

lCat

egor

ies

Prop

ortio

nw

hite

0.54

70.

211

0.48

80.

226

0.49

50.

181

Prop

ortio

nbl

ack

0.00

90.

020

0.02

20.

046

0.01

90.

039

Prop

ortio

nNa

tive

Amer

ican

0.01

00.

017

0.00

40.

008

0.01

10.

012

Prop

ortio

nAs

ian

0.02

90.

048

0.00

50.

011

0.00

60.

017

Prop

ortio

not

her

0.40

60.

198

0.48

20.

215

0.47

00.

173

Soci

odem

ogra

phic

Cha

ract

erist

icsPr

opor

tion

fore

ign-

born

0.28

30.

179

0.33

00.

192

0.35

70.

167

Prop

ortio

nLa

tino

0.70

30.

136

0.71

60.

144

0.71

50.

142

n%

n%

n%

Soci

odem

ogra

phic

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Mex

ican

maj

ority

neig

hbor

hood

1,29

371

%1,

986

71%

3,12

174

%Pu

erto

Rica

nm

ajor

ityne

ighb

orho

od29

716

%45

616

%25

16%

Cuba

nm

ajor

ityne

ighb

orho

od11

36%

174

6%11

13%

Pan-

Latin

one

ighb

orho

od35

2%54

2%16

84%

Oth

erLa

tino

grou

pm

ajor

ityne

ighb

orho

od94

5%14

45%

585

14%

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

dlo

catio

nC

entra

lcity

1,19

365

%1,

832

65%

2,46

658

%N

once

ntra

lcity

639

35%

982

35%

1,77

042

%B

row

nsvi

lle-H

arlin

gen-

San

Beni

to,T

X80

4%81

3%84

2%C

hica

go,IL

102

6%13

35%

223

5%Da

llas,

TX14

1%35

1%10

12%

EIPa

so,T

X69

4%95

3%11

13%

w 0co

ntin

ues

.....

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

32 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Tabl

e1.

Con

tinue

dc..v 0 I'\

J

1980

(N=1

,832

)19

90(N

=2,

814)

2000

(N=

4,23

6)n

%n

%n

%H

oust

on,T

X31

2%78

3%15

54%

Los

Ang

eles

-Lon

gBe

ach,

CA42

023

%62

522

%83

820

%M

cAlle

n-E

dinb

urg-

Mis

sion

,TX

754%

793%

802%

Mia

mi,

FL96

5%14

75%

195

5%Ne

wYo

rk,

NY24

213

%31

611

%40

09%

Ora

nge

Cou

nty,

CA28

2%57

2%10

63%

Pho

enix

-Mes

a,AZ

292%

512%

123

3%R

iver

side

-San

Bern

ardi

no,

CA31

2%50

2%14

33%

San

Anto

nio,

TX91

5%12

04%

146

3%Sa

nD

iego

,CA

201%

452%

952%

Oth

erre

gion

504

28%

902

32%

1,43

634

%N

eigh

borh

ood

Iypo

loqy

"N

otve

rydi

vers

e(E

<.3

5)1,

184

65%

1,73

362

%1,

536

36%

Som

ewha

tdive

rse

(E>

.35

and

E<

.55)

470

26%

703

25%

1,96

146

%D

ivers

e(E

>.5

5an

dE

<.7

5)15

58%

331

12%

625

15%

Very

dive

rse

(E>

.75)

231%

472%

114

3%

Sour

ce:G

eoLy

tics

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

dCh

ange

Data

base

,U.S

.Cen

sus

Data

1980

,199

0,20

00.

Not

es:"

Aver

age

inco

me

in20

00do

llars

.bT

hene

ighb

orho

odty

polo

gies

were

crea

ted

usin

gan

estim

ated

glob

alm

ean

fort

heth

ree

time

poin

tsan

des

timat

edst

anda

rdde

viat

ion.

Not

very

dive

rse

was

one

stan

dard

devi-

atio

nbe

low

the

mea

n,so

mew

hatd

ivers

ewa

son

est

anda

rdde

viatio

nab

ove

the

mea

n,di

vers

ewa

stw

ost

anda

rdde

viat

ions

abov

eth

em

ean,

and

very

dive

rse

was

thre

est

anda

rdde

viat

ions

abov

eth

em

ean.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

32 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

PAN-LATINO NEIGHBORHOODS: CONTEMPORARY MYTH OR REALITY? 303

vide a list of the independent variables with the descriptive statistics. We used an OLSregression model to estimate the following equation:

Y, = 130 + I3(E,) + I3(C,) + I3(R,) + I3(L,) + I3(M,) + 8,

Where:Y, = Latino neighborhood diversity score for Latino majority neighborhoodsE, = Neighborhood economics measures for Latino majority neighborhoodsC, = Neighborhood social structure measures for Latino majority neighborhoodsL, = Neighborhood located in central cityR, = Latino racial composition for Latino majority neighborhoodsM, = Metropolitan region8, = Random error term

FINDINGS

(2)

The mean Latino neighborhood diversity score for all neighborhoods was 0.29, 0.31,and 0.42 for 1980, 1990 and 2000, respectively. There was a net overall increase inthe number of pan-Latino neighborhoods. In 1980,9 percent of the Latino majorityneighborhoods had a diverse (8 percent) or very diverse (1 percent) Latino popula­tion, compared to 18 percent that were diverse (15 percent) or very diverse (3 per­cent) in 2000. The majority of Latino neighborhoods were classified in the leastdiverse category in 1980 and 1990. However, by 2000 only 36 percent of the Latinoneighborhoods were classified as "not very diverse."

In 1980, 55 percent of the Latinos in Latino-majority neighborhoods were raciallyclassified as white, 1 percent as black, 1 percent as Native American, 3 percent asAsian, and 41 percent as other race. In, 2000, 50 percent of the Latinos in such neigh­borhoods were racially classified as white, 2 percent as black, 1 percent as NativeAmerican, 1 percent as Asian, and 47 percent as other race. The percentage of theforeign-born population living in a Latino neighborhood steadily increased from 28percent in 1980 to 36 percent in 2000. In 1980, 71 percent of the Latino neighbor­hoods were Mexican majority neighborhoods, 16 percent were Puerto Rican major­ity neighborhoods, and 6 percent were Cuban majority neighborhoods. In 2000, 74percent of the neighborhoods were Mexican majority, 6 percent were Puerto Ricanmajority, and 3 percent were Cuban majority. In 1980, 65 percent of the Latinoneighborhoods were located in the central city compared to 58 percent in 2000.

In Table 2 we provide the OLS regression estimates for Latino neighborhooddiversity, for 1980, 1990, and 2000, respectively. Our initial strategy was to con­struct three baseline models for each time period. The first model examined the rela­tionship between neighborhood economic characteristics and Latino neighborhooddiversity. The second model examined the relationship between neighborhood socio­demographics and Latino neighborhood diversity. The third model examined therelationship between the racial characteristics of the Latino population and Latino

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

32 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table

2.O

LSEs

timat

esfo

r198

0,19

90,a

nd20

00La

tino

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

dD

iver

sity

Scor

esw 0 ~

1980

Mod

el19

90M

odel

2000

Mod

el

Econ

omic

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Latin

opo

verty

rate

-0.1

823*

**-0

.073

2**

-0.0

869*

**(0

.043

1)

(0.0

275)

(0.0

199)

Mea

nLa

tino

hous

ehol

din

com

e(x

$10K

)a-0

.022

2**

0.01

91*

-0.0

047*

(0.0

084)

(0.0

082)

(0.0

023)

Pro

porti

onLa

tino

unem

ploy

ed-0

.102

1-0

.244

7***

-0.1

013*

(0.0

980)

(0.0

627)

(0.0

496)

Pro

porti

onLa

tino

hom

eow

ners

hip

-0.0

822*

**-0

.128

0***

-0.0

985*

**(0

.020

3)(0

.015

3)(0

.009

6)P

ropo

rtion

Latin

oco

llege

grad

uate

s0.

4161

***

0.14

67*

0.08

10*

(0.1

078)

(0.0

652)

(0.0

365)

Soc

io-D

emog

raph

icC

hara

cter

istic

sP

ropo

rtion

fore

ign-

born

0.12

55**

*0.

0123

-0.0

750*

**(0

.033

5)(0

.023

4)(0

.015

1)

Pro

porti

onLa

tino

-0.2

458*

**-0

.153

8***

-0.1

431

***

(0.0

280)

(0.0

192)

(0.0

126)

Puer

toRi

can

maj

ority

neig

hbor

hood

0.15

71**

*0.

2235

***

0.10

71**

*(0

.014

8)(0

.010

8)(0

.008

2)Cu

ban

maj

ority

neig

hbor

hood

0.31

79**

*0.

2717

***

0.06

81**

*(0

.030

0)(0

.023

0)(0

.014

2)Pa

n-La

tino

neig

hbor

hood

0.38

67**

*0.

4157

***

0.28

93**

*(0

.021

2)(0

.014

5)(0

.008

5)O

ther

Latin

ogr

oup

maj

ority

neig

hbor

hood

0.22

49**

*0.

2259

***

0.11

44**

*(0

.014

7)(0

.008

9)(0

.005

4)La

tino

Rac

ialC

ateg

orie

sP

ropo

rtion

blac

k0.

2408

0.35

59**

*0.

1295

*(0

.185

0)(0

.073

0)(0

.056

2) cont

inue

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

32 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table

2.C

ontin

ued

1980

Mod

el19

90M

odel

2000

Mod

elP

ropo

rtion

Nat

iveAm

erica

n0.

3373

0.98

39**

*-0

.364

5**

(0.1

816)

(0.2

784)

(0.1

210)

Pro

porti

onAs

ian

0.18

66*

-0.1

352

-0.0

941

(0.0

759)

(0.2

042)

(0.0

902)

Pro

porti

onot

her

-0.0

748*

**-0

.046

5**

-0.1

234*

**(0

.020

2)(0

.014

3)(0

.013

1)

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

dLo

catio

nC

entra

lcity

0.01

220.

0087

0.01

09**

(0.0

072)

(0.0

053)

(0.0

034)

Bro

wns

ville

-Har

linge

n-S

anBe

nito

,TX

0.11

21**

*0.

0011

-0.0

488*

**(0

.021

7)(0

.018

8)(0

.013

6)C

hica

go,

IL0.

1292

***

0.10

08**

*0.

0023

(0.0

172)

(0.0

148)

(0.0

093)

Dal

las,

TX-0

.089

0*-0

.036

6-0

.081

9***

(0.0

372)

(0.0

228)

(0.0

120)

EIPa

so,T

X-0

.060

2**

-0.0

625*

**-0

.091

8***

(0.0

214)

(0.0

175)

(0.0

123)

Hou

ston

,TX

-0.0

758*

*0.

0268

-0.0

314*

*(0

.026

2)(0

.017

9)(0

.010

6)Lo

sA

ngel

es-L

ong

Beac

h,CA

0.06

28**

*0.

1099

***

0.01

36(0

.016

4)(0

.012

8)(0

.007

9)M

cAlie

n-E

dinb

urg-

Mis

sion

,TX

-0.0

419

-0.0

177

-0.0

934*

**(0

.023

1)

(0.0

189)

(0.0

138)

Mia

mi,

FL-0

.202

0***

0.03

120.

0548

***

(0.0

325)

(0.0

242)

(0.0

136) co

ntin

ues

w a CJ'1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

32 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table

2.C

ontin

ued

Con

stan

t

N R2

Adju

sted

R2

F d.f.

w 0 Cl)

1980

Mod

el19

90M

odel

2000

Mod

elO

rang

eC

ount

y,CA

-0.0

432

-0.0

224

-0.0

836*

**(0

.027

2)(0

.019

9)(0

.011

9)P

hoen

ix-M

esa,

AZ-0

.055

1*

-0.0

684*

**-0

.102

6***

(0.0

263)

(0.0

202)

(0.0

109)

Riv

ersi

de-S

anBe

rnar

dino

,CA

-0.0

500

-0.0

321

-0.0

507*

**(0

.021

0)(0

.016

9)(0

.011

5)Sa

nAn

toni

o,TX

-0.0

167

-0.0

186

0.02

52*

(0.0

304)

(0.0

208)

(0.0

120)

San

Die

go,

CA-0

.090

1**

-0.0

606*

*-0

.141

9***

(0.0

304)

(0.0

208)

(0.0

120)

Oth

erre

gion

-0.0

037

0.00

69-0

.047

6***

(0.0

147)

(0.0

120)

(0.0

072)

0.51

84**

*0.

3661

***

0.68

54**

*(0

.046

4)(0

.034

7)(0

.019

1)

1,82

42,

813

4,23

00.

5791

0.67

100.

5820

0.57

210.

6675

0.57

9182

.2**

*18

9.13

***

201.

62**

*29

2929

Sour

ce:G

eoLy

tics

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

dCh

ange

Dat

abas

e,U.

S.Ce

nsus

Data

1980

,199

0,20

00.

Note

:N

umbe

rsin

pare

nthe

ses

are

stan

dard

erro

rs.

Ref

eren

ceca

tego

ries

fore

ncla

veet

hnic

type

,La

tino

racia

lcat

egor

y,an

dm

etro

polita

nlo

catio

nar

eM

exica

nm

ajor

ity,w

hite

maj

ority

,an

dNe

wYo

rkM

SA,

resp

ectiv

ely.

*p<

.05

**p

<.0

1**

*p<

.OO

1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

32 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

PAN-LATINO NEIGHBORHOODS: CONTEMPORARY MYTH OR REALITY? 307

neighborhood diversity. In model 4, we combined the three baseline models to testthe robustness of the coefficients from the three baseline models. Finally, in model 5,we used dummy variables for the metropolitan regions that had more than 75 Latinomajority census tracts in 2000. All the models were statistically significant. Model 5produced the highest adjusted R-squared values for all three periods. For the analysispresented in this article, we present only the full model for all three periods.

For all three time periods, the negative relationship between Latino poverty rate,Latino home ownership rate, and Latino neighborhood diversity remained after con­trolling for other neighborhood economic characteristics, neighborhood social char­acteristics, Latino racial composition, and neighborhood location. The positiverelationship between the proportion of Latino college graduates and Latino neigh­borhood diversity was significant for all three time periods. The negative relationshipbetween the proportion Latino unemployed and Latino neighborhood diversity wassignificant in 1990 and 2000. Finally, the negative relationship between averageLatino household income and Latino neighborhood diversity was significant in 1980and 2000. However, the relationship was positive in 1990. Overall, these trends sug­gest that low socioeconomic status (SES) contributes to isolate national-origin groupsfrom other Latinos in a way that is similar to the association between poverty andLatino isolation from non-Latinos (Enchautegui 1997; Massey 1993; Massey andFischer 1999; 2000).

With the exception of proportion foreign-born, all of the neighborhood socio­demographic variables were significant in 1980, 1990, and 2000. In 1990, proportionforeign-born was the only variable that was not significant. In 1980, the relationshipbetween foreign-born and Latino neighborhood diversity was positive, and in 2000 therelationship was negative. In all the models, for all time periods, the proportion ofLatinos in the census tract was negatively correlated with Latino neighborhood diver­sity. Puerto Rican majority neighborhoods, Cuban majority neighborhoods, otherLatino majority neighborhoods, and pan-Latino neighborhoods were positively corre­lated with Latino neighborhood diversity for the three time periods for all the models."

The proportion of black Hispanics had a significant positive impact on diversity inthe 1990 and 2000 models. The effect of proportion of Native American Hispanicswas positive and significant in 1990, whereas in 2000, this variable was negative andsignificant. The proportion Asian was significant only in the 1980 model. For allthree time periods, the proportion of other was negative and significant. The centralcity variable was positive and significant in the 2000 model.

DISCUSSIONIn this article, we explored four themes: (1) Latino neighborhood diversity trends; (2)the relationship between Latino neighborhood diversity and socioeconomic factors;(3) the relationship between Latino concentration and immigration and Latinoneighborhood diversity; and (4) the relationship between neighborhood racial com­position and Latino neighborhood diversity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

32 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

308 SOCIOLOGICAL FOCUS

First, we presented evidence that predominantly pan-Latino neighborhoods doexist, but they are a small fraction of the total Latino neighborhoods in the UnitedStates. We also presented evidence that Latino neighborhood diversity is steadilyincreasing. The average Latino neighborhood diversity score increased from .29 in1980 to .42 in 2000. We found that 1 percent (23 neighborhoods) of the 1980 Latinomajority neighborhoods were pan-Latino (i.e., very diverse), and by 2000 the per­centage had increased to 3 percent (114 neighborhoods). These pan-Latino neigh­borhoods do not exist in every region. For example, 78 percent of the very diversepan-Latino neighborhoods were in three metropolitan regions, New York (56 verydiverse neighborhoods), Chicago (17 very diverse neighborhoods), and Miami (16very diverse neighborhoods). These findings are consistent with research by JohnIceland that showed that neighborhood diversity is on the rise in the United States(Iceland 2009).

Second, Latino neighborhood diversity was related to the economic quality of theneighborhood. Latino neighborhood diversity declined when there was a confluenceof negative economic conditions. Conversely, the findings suggest that Latino neigh­borhood diversiry increased when there was a confluence of positive economic con­ditions. These findings concur with research findings that higher SES is correlatedwith pan-Latino self-identification (Jones-Correa and Leal 1996). Such findings havebeen interpreted as indicative of a developing sense ofpan-ethnic solidarity (or groupconsciousness) among the more educated members of this minority group.Neighborhoods that foster an environment conducive for pan-Latino populationsappear to have middle-class social structures that sustain a class-diverse population. Achange in the economic structure of the neighborhood may signal enhanced Latinoethnic diversity. This finding suggests avenues for future research on the links betweensocial mobility and reduced social distance among heterogeneous Latino groups. Dohighly educated Latinos prefer to live in pan-Larino neighborhoods, or are highlyeducated immigrants from different Central and South American countries living ina Latino neighborhood? Unfortunately, we were not able to answer these questions,but future research that is designed to parse out these effects will make an importantcontribution to the understanding of Latino neighborhood diversity.

Third, the Latino population size in the neighborhood may be a factor shapingLatino neighborhood diversity. As the proportion of Latinos increased in the neigh­borhood, Latino neighborhood diversity declined. As expected, Latino neighbor­hoods with high diversity scores were more likely to exist in neighborhoods wherethere was no dominant ethnic group (i.e., Mexican majority neighborhood).However, 11 percent (13 of the 114) of the very diverse pan-Latino neighborhoodsin 2000 had either Puerto Rican (4), Cuban (3), or Mexican (6) majority. This rep­resents a decline from 35 percent (8 out 23) of the very diverse pan-Latino neigh­borhoods that in 1980 had a single majority group. One implication of this findingis that once a neighborhood has a majority ethnic group, the likelihood that thisneighborhood will have a diverse Latino population decreases. Although statistically,Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban majority neighborhoods can have very diverse

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

32 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

PAN-LATINO NEIGHBORHOODS: CONTEMPORARY MYTH OR REALITY? 309

Latino populations, the data indicate that these neighborhoods do not have highdiversity scores. Finally, the proportion of immigrants in the census tract did have apositive effect on diversity in 1980, but, to our surprise, this effect turned negative in2000. This finding suggests that immigration produced a decrease in Latino neigh­borhood diversity for 2000. This finding is somewhat puzzling. Why did the signchange? One possible explanation is that the foreign-born population measured in1980 was more diverse compared to the 2000 population. Large numbers of foreign­born residents may have moved into Latino neighborhoods that had a similar ethnicpopulation. A second possible explanation is that the foreign-born population pre­ferred to live in neighborhoods that were more homogeneous because of cultural andsocial resources (Logan, Zhang, and Alba 2002).

Fourth, the increase in the proportion of black Latinos had a positive effect onLatino neighborhood diversity. However, the increase in the proportion of other as arace had a negative effect on Latino neighborhood diversity. Black Latinos mayincrease Latino neighborhood diversity because they typically do not come from thelargest Latino immigrant group-Mexican (Iceland 2009; Iceland and Nelson 2008).This dimension of Latino neighborhood diversity typically reflects Latino immigrantsfrom the Caribbean Islands and Central and South American countries (Denton andMassey 1989). For a typical Latino neighborhood, an increase in black Latinos maysignifY an increase in Latinos from countries other than Mexico, resulting in anincrease in Latino neighborhood diversity. However, the reverse may also be true forLatino neighborhoods that have few Mexicans. For example, for Latino neighborhooddiversity to increase in New York, an influx of Mexicans would be needed in Latinomajority neighborhoods. Recent scholarship has shown that the Mexican populationhas increased in New York during the past 20 years (Lobo, Flores, and Salvo 2002;Logan 2001; Smith 2006). This was one of the major reasons that New York had, onaverage, very diverse Latino neighborhoods in 2000. Likewise, the Latino neighbor­hoods in Los Angeles were not attracting the type of Latino neighborhood diversitythat was found in New York or Miami. Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and Central and SouthAmericans lived in the Los Angeles region, but they were not living in significant num­bers in Latino majority or Mexican majority neighborhoods. They were more dis­persed in other neighborhoods throughout the Los Angeles metropolitan region.

As mentioned in this article, the concept of a Latino neighborhood is increasinglyused by many demographic studies in an attempt to understand changing social envi­ronments. Our goal was to examine the diversity of the ethnic dimension of Latinoneighborhoods. This research confirms the statistical existence of pan-Latino neigh­borhoods in selected metropolitan statistical areas. In our opinion, the most impor­tant finding we present in this article is the relationship between the overall economicquality of the neighborhood and Latino neighborhood diversity. Unfortunately, weare not in a position to speak to the cause and effect of this relationship, but theresults do signifY that further research is needed to understand more fully Latinos'motivation for moving into different types of neighborhoods and to what extent theeconomic quality of the neighborhood is the driving factor.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

32 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

310 SOCIOLOGICAL FOCUS

CAVEATSThe U.S. census tract, which we relied on as our unit of analysis, is an imperfect mea­sure of an ethnic neighborhood. Within any given tract, the uneven spatial distribu­tion of residents according to Latino subgroups is possible, even if the tract is a bonafide pan-Latino neighborhood. We may be missing spaces more meaningful as neigh­borhoods, especially neighborhoods within census tracts. Another problem is the sin­gularity of a multiethnic category like "other Latino," which could mask further localdiversity on account of groups not listed individually in the calculation of the diver­sity score, or even real neighborhoods of groups not accounted for (i.e., groups otherthan Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans).

SUMMARYThe study of neighborhood composition and change is central to the advancement ofurban sociology. The purpose of the present analysis was to establish a baseline mea­sure for ethnic diversity within Latino predominant neighborhoods and to explorewhich neighborhood characteristics were strongly associated with Latino neighbor­hood diversity. This is the first study to statistically measure Latino neighborhooddiversity over three time periods. We believe that the findings presented in this arti­cle make an important contribution to our understanding of Latino neighborhoods.First, although pan-Latino neighborhood diversity is on the rise, the majority ofLatino neighborhoods were not pan-Latino neighborhoods. Second, the majority ofpan-Latino neighborhoods are located in three metropolitan regions. Third, the evi­dence suggests that the socioeconomic quality of the neighborhood was strongly asso­ciated with Latino neighborhood diversity. There is room for improving on thisanalysis by further specifying the nexus between social proximity, solidarity, and iden­tities on one hand and residential proximity on the other. Our hope is that, as thisline of inquiry matures, we will develop a better conceptual model that theorizes themultiple dimensions of pan-erhniciry for the burgeoning Latino neighborhoods thatare now part of the social fabric in many cities. The findings highlight two implica­tions for future research: (1) researchers need to think carefully about how to empir­ically create a measure for a diverse Latino neighborhood, and (2) researchers need to

develop new surveys and questions that ask Latino respondents about their motiva­tions for moving into a neighborhood.

J. S. Onesimo Sandoval is Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology andCriminal Justice at Saint Louis University. His research interests include urban soci­ology, demography, and U.S. Latino populations. He is currently working on severalresearch projects, which include the spatial segregation of minority groups; hedonicprice models and the impact of race; and the impact of Latino immigration on mid­western communities.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

32 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

PAN-LATINO NEIGHBORHOODS: CONTEMPORARY MYTH OR REALITY? 311

Bienvenido Ruiz is a doctoral candidate in sociology at Northwestern University. Hisresearch interests include race and ethniciry, social stratification, and U.S. Latino pop­

ulations. He is currently researching the social mobility and incorporation of Mexican

Americans and their implications for theories of immigrant assimilation.

NOTES1. The terms "Latino" and "Hispanic" are used interchangeably.2. The term "ethnic" denotes distinction berween ancestry groups. In the United States theterm "ethnic" refers to a country of origin, but also to pan-ethnic categories like Latino orHispanic. We used the term "ethnic" in reference to identities based on country of origin.3. In 1980, 21 ofsuch census tracts were outside a metropolitan statistical area. This comparedto 212 and 285 in 1990 and 2000, respectively.4. "Pan-Latino" is the category for neighborhoods where no single Latino category representedthe majority. The "Majority Other Latino" category represented neighborhoods where themajority of Latinos were classified as other Larino. The reference category was majorityMexican census tracts.

REFERENCESAlba, Richard, John Logan, Brian]. Stults, Gilbert Marzan, and Wenquan Zhang. 1999.

"Immigrant Groups in the Suburbs: A Reexamination of Suburbanization and SpatialAssimilation." American SociologicalReview 64:446-460.

Bada, X6chitl and Gilberto Cardenas. 2009. "Blacks, Latinos, and the Immigration Debate:Conflict and Cooperation in Two Global Cities." Pp. 166-182 in How the United StatesRacializes Latinos, edited by J. A. Cobas, J. Duany, and J. R. Feagin. Boulder, CO:Paradigm.

Bean, Frank D. and Marta Tienda. 1987. The Hispanic Population ofthe United States. NewYork: Russell Sage Foundation.

Charles, Camille Zubrinsky. 2003. "The Dynamics of Racial Residential Segregation." AnnualReview ofSociology 29:167-207.

DeGenova, Nicholas and Ana Y. Ramos-Zayas. 2003. Latino Crossings: Mexicans, PuertoRicans, and the Politics ofRace and Citizenship. New York: Routledge.

Denton, Nancy A. 1991. "Patterns of Neighborhood Transition in a Multiethnic World: U.S.Metropolitan Areas, 1970-1980." Demography 28:41-63.

Denton, Nancy A. and Douglas S. Massey. 1989. "Racial Identity among CaribbeanHispanics: The Effect of Double Minority Status on Residential Segregation." AmericanSociological Review 54:790-808.

Duany, Jorge. 2003. "Puerto Rican, Hispanic or Latino? Recent Debates on National andPanethnic Identities." Journal ofthe Center for Puerto Rican Studies 15:256-267.

Ellen, Ingrid Gould. 2000. Sharing America 5 Neighborhood: The Prospects for Stable RacialIntegration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Enchautegui, Maria E. 1997. "Latino Neighborhoods and Latino Neighborhood Poverty."Journal ofUrban Affairs 19:445-467.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

32 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

312 SOCIOLOGICAL FOCUS

Espiritu, Yen Lee. 1993. Asian American Panethnicity: Bridging Institutions and Identities.Philadelphia, PA:Temple Universiry Press.

Funkhouser, Edward. 2000. "Changes in the Geographic Concentration and Location ofResidence of Immigrants." International Migration Review 34:489-510.

GeoLytics Inc. 2004. "Neighborhood Change Database." East Brunswick, NJ.Gimenez, Martha E. 1989. "Latino/Hispanic-Who Needs a Name? The Case against a

Standardized Terminology." International journal ofHealth Services 19:557-571.Guest, Avery M. and James A. Weed. 1976. "Ethnic Residential Segregation: Patterns of

Change." American Journal ofSociology 81:1088-1111.Guzman, Betsy. 2001. "The Hispanic Population: Census 2000 Brief." U.S. Census Bureau,

Washington, DC.Iceland, John. 2004. "Beyond Black and White Metropolitan Residential Segregation in

Multi-Erhnic America." Social ScienceResearch 33:248-271.---.2009. Where We Live Now: Immigration and Race in the United States. Berkeley, CA:

Universiry of California Press.Iceland, John and Kyle Anne Nelson. 2008. "Hispanic Segregation in Metropolitan America:

Exploring the Multiple Forms of Spatial Assimilation." American Sociological Review73:741-765.

Itzigsohn, Jose and Carlos Dore-Cabral. 2000. "Competing Identities? Race, Ethniciry, andPanethnicity among Dominicans in the United States." Sociological Forum 12:225-247.

Jargowsky, Paul A. 1997. Povertyand Place: Ghettos, Barrios, and the American City. New York:Russell Sage Foundation.

[ones-Correa, Michael and David L. Leal. 1996. '''Becoming Hispanic': Secondary PanethnicIdentification among Latin American-Origin Populations in the United States." HispanicJournal ofBehavioral Sciences 18:214-254.

Kim, Ann H. 2005. "Panethniciry and Ethnic Resources in Residential Integration: AComparative Study ofTwo Host Societies." Canadian Studies in Population 32:1-28.

Kim, Ann H. and Michael J. White. 2010. "Panethniciry, Ethnic Diversity and ResidentialSegregation." American Journal ofSociology 115:1558-1596.

Lobo, Arun P., Ronald J.O. Flores, and Joseph J. Salvo. 2002. "The Impact of HispanicGrowth on the Racial/Ethnic Composition of New York Ciry Neighborhoods." UrbanAffiirs Review 37:703-727.

Logan, John R. 2001. "The New Latinos: Who They Are, Where They Are." Lewis MumfordCenter for Comparative Urban and Regional Research University at Albany, Albany, NY.

Logan, John R., Wenquan Zhang, and Richard D. Alba. 2002. "Immigrant Enclaves andEthnic Communities in New York and Los Angeles." American Sociological Review67:299-322.

Lopez, David and Yen Espiritu. 1990. "Panethnicity in the United States: A TheoreticalFramework." Ethnic and Racial Studies 13:198-224.

Maly, Michael. 2005. Beyond Segregation: Multiracial and Multiethnic Neighborhoods in theUnited States. Philadelphia, PA:Temple Universiry Press.

Martin, Michael E. 2007. Residential Segregation Patterns of Latinos in the United States,1990-2000. New York: Routledge.

Massey,Douglas S. 1993. "Latinos, Poverty,and the Underclass: A New Agenda for Research."Hispanic Journal ofBehavioral Sciences 15:449-475.

Massey, Douglas S. and Nancy A. Denton. 1987. "Trends in the Residential Segregation ofBlacks, Hispanics, and Asians." American Sociological Review 52:802-825.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

32 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

PAN-LATINO NEIGHBORHOODS: CONTEMPORARY MYTH OR REALITY? 313

---. 1989. "Hypersegregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas: Black and HispanicSegregation along Five Dimensions." Demography 26:373-391.

Massey, Douglas S. and Mary J. Fischer. 1999. "Does Rising Income Bring Integration? NewResults for Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in 1990." Social Science Research 28:316--326.

---. 2000. "How Segregation Concentrates Poverty." Ethnic and Racial Studies 23:670-691.McConnell, Eileen Diaz and Edward Delgado-Romero. 2004. "Latino Panethnicity: Reality

or Methodological Construction?" Sociological Focus 37:297-312.Moore, Joan. 1990. "Hispanic/Latino: Imposed Label or Real Identity?" Latino StudiesJournal

1:33-37.Murguia, Edward. 1991. "On Latino/Hispanic Ethnic Identity." Latino StudiesJournal 2:8-18.Nyden, Philip, Michael T. Maly, and John Lukehart. 1997. "The Emergence ofStable Racially

and Ethnically Diverse Urban Communities: A Case Study of Nine U.S. Cities." HousingPolicy Debate 8:491-534.

Okamoto, Dina G. 2003. "Toward a Theory of Panethnicity: Explaining Asian AmericanCollective Action." American Sociological Review 68:811-842.

ami, Michael and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in the United States: From the1960s to the 1990s. New York: Routledge.

Padilla, Felix M. 1985. Latino Ethnic Consciousness: The CaseofMexican Americans and PuertoRicans in Chicago. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame.

Pessar, Patricia R. 1995. "The Elusive Enclave: Ethnicity, Class, and Nationality among LatinoEntrepreneurs in Greater Washington, D.C." Human Organization 54:383-392.

Portes, Alejandro and Ruben Rumbaut. 1996. Immigrant America: A Portrait. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press.

Ricourt, Milagros and Ruby Danta. 2002. Hispanas de Queens: Latino Panethnicity in a NewYork City Neighborhood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Sandoval, Juan Onesirno, Hans P. Johnson, and Sonya M. Tafoya. 2002. "Who's YourNeighbor? Residential Segregation and Diversity in California." California Counts 4:1-18.

Skeldon, Ronald. 1995. "The Last Half Century of Chinese Overseas (1945-1994):Comparative Perspectives." International Migration Review 29:576--579.

Smith, Robert C. 2006. Mexican New York: Transnational Lives ofNew Immigrants. Berkeley,CA: University of California Press.

Suro, Roberto. 2002. "Counting the Other Hispanics: How Many Colombians, Dominicans,Ecuadorians, Guatemalans and Salvadorans Are There in the United States?" Center onUrban and Metropolitan Policy and the Pew Hispanic Center, Washington, DC.

Theil, Henri. 1972. Statistical Decomposition Analysis: With Applications in the Social andAdministrative Sciences. Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland Publishing.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2003. "Hispanic Population Reaches All-Time High of 38.8Million." Washington, DC.

Waters, Mary. 1994. "Ethnic and Racial Identities of Second-Generation Black Immigrants inNew York City." International Migration Review 28:795-820.

---. 1999. Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities.Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Waters, Mary and Karl Eschbach. 1995. "Immigration and Ethnic and Racial Inequality inthe United States." Annual Review ofSociology 21:419--446.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

32 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014