The aim of this essay is to explore the analysis of residential segregation put forward by different Economists and how it is a prominent social issue. It is also to analyse Schelling’s spatial model as a way of understanding the implications of one person from a particular neighbourhood relocating. To do so I will subsequently be evaluating Milton Friedman’s methodological stance on Schelling’s model and explore whether this is a convincing stance to take when looking at residential segregation.
Residential segregation, being the special separation between two distinctive social or racial groups, has been a crucial focal point for both economists and sociologists. This is because not only is it a significant social issue as it is causing conflict between different collectives of people, but it also impacts the outcomes of cultural, political and economic activity within that region as these are influenced by the type of people who live in that area. For example, Detroit is known to be one of the most segregated areas in America and has been known to carry the nickname “chocolate city, vanilla suburbs” with a fear that this may continue to be a problem in developing cities across America (Farley et al, 1978). This highlights the prevalence of segregation being an issue in society as the division is so extreme between the white and black communities, which therefore makes it harder to achieve a well-integrated society. One may argue that the reason for this residential segregation ultimately comes down to an individual’s preferences and the strength of these as combined with others’ preferences and incentives set to fulfil their own self-interest, it collectively leads to segregation. This is because one individual fulfilling their own self-interest and moving to a new house to a different neighbourhood leaves an empty house that will be filled with a different person. This in turn will affect the surrounding neighbours and may even provoke one to move, causing a chain reaction of moving to a new house until everyone is comfortable in their neighbourhoods. This is the basis of Schelling’s model.
One economist who argued that residential segregation derives from individual behaviour, particularly discriminatory behaviour, was Thomas Schelling through his practice of game-theory studying neighbourhood-based decisions in his spatial model. His model started simply on a checkerboard using pennies to represent white and black coloured skin groups, conveying the highly complex matter of residential segregation through a simple shifting of pennies until a ratio of black to white surrounding neighbours was to every penny’s satisfaction. Quite surprisingly, one outcome that was extracted was that communities with a low tolerance for the other race were rather integrated, whereas communities with high tolerance experienced more segregation. It is important therefore to note that Schelling was looking at individual behaviour on a micro-economic scale that transpired to induce a chain reaction of consequent actions made by their neighbours. This model was introduced at a very important time in America, especially considering the civil rights movement that was taking place, raising awareness therefore, challenging these numerous prejudices. However, while this model focuses on the segregation between two types or rather colours of people, it is also important to note that this may be unintended as he describes the thought behind choosing where to live “more like congregation than segregation” meaning that individuals are seeking to live among others of the same skin colour in order to feel more comfortable in their community (Thomas Schelling, 1978).
Although Schelling’s model highlights and draws attention to residential segregation it still fails to represent this as a social issue and only focuses on the preferences of people to live with others of the same skin colour. In contrast to this, there are various other factors that contribute and influence individuals’ decisions on where to live, for example, wanting to be close to good schools in order to further their child’s education and therefore job opportunities. This factor and others similar may therefore, attract a particular group or class of person to an area, resulting in a growing division between classes and communities. Noticeably this is a worrying issue that ultimately derives from an individual’s desire to fulfil their self-interest. Another limitation of the model is that it is suggesting that every individual’s decision to live in a specific area or not is due to the number of like-coloured people in that area, which I find an outrageous reason for wanting or rather not wanting to live somewhere. One of the main issues of residential segregation is the fact that it creates more inequality. This is because the gaps between classes become larger, creating more socioeconomic segregation as there is essentially a vicious cycle of those who can afford access to a spectrum of opportunities, earning more opportunities in the future as more doors open. While this is favourable for the individuals gaining these continuous rewards, those in lower classes, for example, may consequently find it slightly more difficult to achieve the same opportunities due to the lack of options they began life with. An example of these compelling gaps between classes is the ‘Caste system’ in India. Although this is becoming less prominent in their society as the country is developing, it is still embedded in their culture as there are still extensive wealth gaps in large Indian cities, which prevent people further down the hierarchy to experience the same opportunities as their neighbours at the top.
On the other hand, this juxtaposes Karl Marx’s assumption of an individual’s choice not being their own but rather one determined and sometimes hindered by their social class. One reason why an individual may be hindered by their social class is that Marx saw lower or less powerful classes as having their norms dictated to them by higher and more superiorly perceived classes. This henceforth raises a particularly interesting argument as to whether these choices made by individuals of where to live are truly theirs or whether they have been severely influenced or shaped by their particular class, income and therefore status in society. This would therefore weaken the argument of residential segregation being born out of self-interest as not everyone may have the luxury of simply choosing to live in an area based on its white to black population ratio. While this is a compelling argument, the relevancy of it now might not be as strong as in the 19th century. This is because in many western societies we do not have such defined classes now and in most modern societies, we are not restricted by the class we fit into, meaning that we are able to act in favour of our self-interests more freely.
Another way of analysing Schelling’s model and residential segregation would be by looking through the perspective of Emile Durkheim. According to him individuals’ actions were influenced and governed by those around them as the society they lived in embedded certain social and behavioural norms into them, meaning that these influences were not tracible empirically, making them difficult to measure. An example of different social norms may be Durkheim’s study on suicide and how in some areas it is considered a sacrifice and the ultimate offering, whereas in others it can be considered an escape route. This can be considered a limitation of Schelling’s model as it does not take into consideration the multitude of different factors, mostly set in place by a society or culture that affect one’s decision to relocate. This is an important limitation as it highlights that what, at first glance may seem like an independent decision made by an individual, is actually, arguably, a slightly biased one based on a number of different characteristics of the individual and their environment.
Encouraging Schelling was a positive economist named Milton Friedman, whose methodology was, if the tools are right for a model then the assumptions one makes don’t matter. Although Schelling’s model was not methodological instrumentalist, Friedman’s methodology is relevant to it as Schelling does not make any assumptions about the individuals who are relocating and the myriad of reasons contributing to this but rather the fact that they have indeed moved. They also both have the same central point of focusing on homo-economicus, that being the individual’s self-interest and their pursuit to fulfil this. However, Friedman has been criticised for generalizing theories, famously by Caldwell, who was a firm believer in science being largely to do with explanation rather than outcome. This obviously contrasted with the views of Friedman as he focused more on outcomes rather than the reason why this was the case. I find it more convincing to focus largely on the explanations of a model rather than simply looking at the outcomes, even if they aren’t empirical. This is especially apparent in a model such as Schelling’s as, for one to really help tackle this concerning social issue I believe that first they must learn why they are relocating and understand all of the different factors that have contributed to them making this decision. This is because I do not find it convincing that an individual would move simply because they do not feel comfortable being the only white in a predominantly black community or vice versa.
Overall, I would consider residential segregation a serious social issue. This is not only due to the fact that in Schelling’s model it stems from racial discrimination as it proposes that as individuals, we like to live surrounded by people of the same skin colour in order to feel more comfortable. However, it is also due to the fact that it has considerable ramifications on the rest of society, for example the safety of that neighbourhood. This is made apparent by Krivo & Peterson (2009) when a correlation between segregated communities and violence was established, with the reasoning that it is a retaliation over injustices in wealth distribution over that area. Although racial discrimination is the basis of Schelling’s model, I do not think that it is the basis of residential segregation as I would argue that a great deal of segregation today is caused unintentionally. An example of this may be when people of similar religious orientation gather to pray, they are segregating themselves unintentionally from people of different faiths. On the other hand, Schelling may argue that this is a congregation, however in the end I would see little difference between the two. It is in my opinion therefore, that when analysing residential segregation, the use of Schelling’s model is limited and while it is useful to view the distribution of whites and blacks in a certain area to examine empirically, for reasons as to why the numbers have come to be this way cannot be drawn from the model.