Neighborhoods,Race,and Capital

Abstract

The author analyzes changes in commercial building activity over the 1980s for 75 central-city residential neighborhoods in Chicago to identify how neighborhood residential change affects commercial investment. Spatial econometrics are used to control for problems of spatial autocorrelation. The results indicate that although changes in population and income levels are important, racial and ethnic change have substantial effects on commercial investment flows. Increases in the percentage of black or Hispanic residents result in decreases in commercial investment. Although additional research is needed to identify the specific mechanisms resulting in these effects, the magnitudes are substantial, and potential policy implications are considered.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anselin, L. 1988. Spatial econometrics: Methods and models. Boston: Kluwer.

Anselin, L. 1995. Spacestat version 1.80 users guide. Morgantown: Regional Research Institute, West Virginia Univ.

Bates, T. 1989. Small business viability in the urban ghetto. Journal of Regional Science 29:625-643.

Bates, T. 1993. Banking on black business. Washington, DC: Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

Bingham, R. , and Z. Zhang . 1997. Poverty and economic morphology of Ohio central-city neighborhoods. Urban Affairs Review 32:766-796.

Hanushek, E. 1986. The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools. Journal of Economic Literature 24:1141-1177.

Holzer, H. 1996. What employers want: Job prospects for less-educated workers. New York: Russell Sage.

Hunter, W. C. , and M. B. Walker . 1995. The cultural affinity hypothesis and mortgage lending decisions. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Working Paper Series, no. 95-8. Chicago: Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

Inside Mortgage Finance Publications . 1997. Inside fair lending. Washington, DC: Author.

10.

James, F. 1995. Urban economies: Trends, forces, and implications for the president’s national urban policy. Cityscape 1(2): 67-124.

11.

Kasarda, J. 1994. Industrial restructuring and the consequences of changing job locations. Chapel Hill: Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

12.

Local Initiatives Support Corporation. 1997. http://www.ruralisc.org/lisc.html, 9 September.

13.

Lynn, L. 1994. Social structures as economic growth tools. Cityscape 1(1): 245-265.

14.

Mayer, C. 1996. Does location matter? New England Economic Review, May/June, 26-40.

15.

McDonald, J. , and P. Prather . 1994. Suburban employment centers: The case of Chicago. Urban Studies 31:201-218.

16.

Orfield, M. 1997. Metropolitics: A regional agenda for community and stability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

17.

Porter, M. 1995. The competitive advantage of the inner city. Harvard Business Review, May/June, 55-71.

18.

Sawicki, D. , and M. Moody . 1996. Déjà vu all over again: Porter’s model of inner-city redevelopment. Review of Black Political Economy 24(2/3): 75-94.

19.

Struyk, R. , and F. James . 1975. Intrametropolitan industrial location. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

20.

Thomas, K. 1993. Community reinvestment performance. Chicago: Probus.

21.

Turner, S. 1997. Barriers to a better break: Employer discrimination and spatial mismatch in metropolitan Detroit. Journal of Urban Affairs 19:123-141.

22.

Walker, C. 1995. Federal funds, local choices: An evaluation of the community development block grant program, vol. 1. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.