reestruturação urbana e demografia

8/12/2019 Reestruturao Urbana e Demografia

1/24

lark University

The Roepke Lecture in Economic Geography Urban Restructuring from a DemographicPerspectiveAuthor(s): W. A. V. ClarkSource: Economic Geography, Vol. 63, No. 2 (Apr., 1987), pp. 103-125Published by: Clark UniversityStable 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 [email protected].

.

Clark Universityis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toEconomic Geography.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 143.106.201.10 on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:56:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=clarkhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/144149?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/144149?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=clark


2/24

E O N O

EGR PHY

VOL.

63

APRIL,

1987 No. 2

THE

ROEPKE LECTURE IN ECONOMIC

GEOGRAPHY

URBAN

RESTRUCTURING

FROM A DEMOGRAPHIC

PERSPECTIVE

v

W. A. V. CLARK

University of California,

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.

A

specific 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 Economic Geography

was

established to honor the late

Professor

Howard

G.

Roepke

who served on the

faculty

of

the Univer-

sity

of

Illinois

at Urbana-Champaign

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

Meeting 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 Eric Moore 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.

Even 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.

Indeed,

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. Massey

[41] sug-

gests that

economics and

economic geog-

raphy

have been

silent on

the

central and

critical

issues

of the

division of

labor

[41];

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/24

104

ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY

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.

METHODOLOGICAL DEBATES

The

rapidity

of

spatial

economic

change, city growth,

and suburbanization

following the Second World War cap-

tured the attention of economists and

geographers alike.

One 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, spatialrelations,

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].

Not

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.

If 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.

In

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.

Interest

shifted from location

in

space

to

processes

in

space

and

the

desire

to

derive

alternative theories

to



4/24

URBAN

RESTRUCTURING

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.

Much

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. Most 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-Marxist

approaches

to

understanding society

and

its

forms. Much

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.

In

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.

A

survey 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-Marxist or the new economic geog-

raphy, are a coherent set of ideas aimed at

explaining society.

Of

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 NOTION OF

RESTRUCTURING

Out 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



5/24

106

ECONoMic

GEOGRAPHY

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.)

A

second

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.

In

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.

A

third issue

is

that

the

discussions

of

restructuring are largely empirical with

little

theorization beyond relying

on

the

changing organization

of

industry.

In

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

Massey [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].

Massey'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. Now, the working

out of

this

structure,

at least as presented

by

Massey,

is largely firm based.

Massey

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].

In

a

substantial portion

of Massey's

book, the examples suggest that spatial

social separation

is

the outcome

of the

spatial

division

of labor. To Massey 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

Martin

[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]. Martin 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' rom 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.

In

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



6/24

URBAN

RESTRUCTURING

107

of urban

land.

In

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

RESTRUCTURING FROM

A

DEMOGRAPHIC PERSPECTIVE

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). In

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. Now, 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

Changes

LclMblt

Mobility

in

Fertility

State

Management

of

Labor

Household

of

PopulAtioA

Dynamics

Migration

RESTRUCTURING

OF

POPULATION

AT

THE

LOCAL

LEVEL

Fig.

1.

Relationships

among

restructuring

and

demographic

concepts.



7/24

108

ECONOMIC

GEOGRAPHY

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.

In 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.

A

similar

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.

International

population

flows are a

good example

of multiple-determined

phenomena, which in turn create com-

plex social

spatial patterns.

Certainly, the

modern

state

influences the labor supply

needed for economic

development. In-

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. Not 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, Clark

[6]

has suggested the

importance of government

programs

in

influencing the

shifts of population.

However,

Morrill [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 European

nations

(Figure

2).



8/24

URBAN

RESTRUCTURING 109

n

2E

co

o

)

C

co

co

co

C)LL

0

a

0

c

c

0~~~~~~0

0~~~~~~~

n _

0

co

>,

0~~~~~~~~~

02 S~~~~~

)

m

m

o

CL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ZO O

_.

zT

w

C))

D

cn~~~~~~

0)~~~~~~~~~.........

.0%....HIS...PANIC--

................

...........

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~

~

~

C

..............

...

... .........

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~0

>60%

BLACK~~~~~.............

........... ........

.....

..........

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5

........

...

......

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

L.A. CITY

IMITS~~~~~~~~~~~~....

..

...

.....

....................

....

:

....

........

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

0

L.A.......

........

CHOOL......

DISTRICTOUND

RY...

..........

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Fig. 5. Theos Angeles

School District and

its ethnic

ompos.t.on.in.1980.



18/24

URBAN

RESTRUCTURING

119

population.

Part

of

the decline

in

white

enrollments

is related to differential

out-

migration

(Table 8). In 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

n

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

POPULATION ELOCATION

N SOUTHERN

ALIFORNIA,

975-1980

NET

MIGRATION

F

IIOUSEHOLDS ITH

CHILDREN,

Destination

Surrounding

Rest of

L.A.

County Counties

State

Origin [lisp. +11720 +1800 +1640

White

+6560 +7720

t5120

L.A.

City 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

|Ns

Other,'

CO)

280d

o

NWhite

o

Ns,,

0

3 0

Z

.

\\

1B8l0a|ck4

\-

Z

1

3 0

-

__

80-

0

1-

-- |

1

1

1

70

72

74

76

78 80 82

84

YEAR

Fig.

6. Total pupil

enrollment

in the

Los Angeles

school

system.



19/24

120

ECONoMIc

GEOGRAPHY

(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.

In 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%

ccurred.

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. A

closer

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-

ILi

444

+.,

j

bOther

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

YEAR

Fig.

7.

Enrollment

change

in

the

total

school

system,



20/24

URBAN

RESTRUCTURING 121

100

80/

WD 60

| Black

60

z

Other

o

40

W

20

0

White\

/

I

-40

71

72

73

74

75

76 77

78

79

80 81

82

83 84

Fig.

8.

Enrollment

in

the

grade

schools

in the San Fernando

Valley.

0.

95

4444

0.3

_

b Pal,_

X

issimilarity

0.7

0.6- ,. .,.,.

0,5>- '-~~ ..,,,^\s-s-s---...

.

.

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

0.4~~~~~~~~s, Exposure

0.-3

............

0.1

2-

70

72

74

76

78

80 82

84

Fig.

9. Indices

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.



21/24

122

ECONOMIC

GEOGRAPHY

holds. (See Massey 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.

In 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.

CONCLUSION

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

urbanregions. 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.

It

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.

It is this micro/macro concern

that must continue to drive our attempts

to

understand both individual

behavior

and

macro

policy

issues [12].

A number 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.

In 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.

Even

those most committed

to

utilizing

the neo-Marxist

urban restructuring

ap-

proach

would admit that

people are

not

simply manipulated

by

the larger society.

If

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,

especiallythose 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.

LITERATURE

CITED

1. Berry,

B.

J.

L.

The Open

Housing Question:

Race and Housing

in Chicago 1966-1976.

Cam-

bridge,

MA:

Ballinger,

1979.



22/24

URBAN RESTRUCTURING 123

2. Berry,

B.

J.

L.

and

1). C.

Dahmann.

Population

Distribution in the United

States in the 1970s,

Population Redistribution

and Public Policy.

Edited

by

B.

J.

L.

Berry

and

L. P.

Silverman.

Washington 1).C.: National

Academy of Sci-

ences, 1980.

3. Bluestone,

B.

and

B.

Harrison. The

De-indus-

trialization of

America. New

York: Basic

Books,

1982.

4.

Bradbury,

J.

H.

Regional

and Industrial Re-

structuring Processes

in

the New International

Division

of

Labor,

Progress in Human

Geog-

raphy, 9 (1985), pp. 38-63.

5. Cardoza,

D.,

L.

Huddy, and

D.

0.

Sears.

The

Symbolic

Attitudes Study: Public

Attitudes

Toward

Bilingual Education. Technical

Report

R-21. Los

Alamitos, CA: Center for Bilingual

Education,

1984.

6.

Clark,

G.

L.

Interregional

Migration,

National

Policy,

and Social Justice,

Totowa, NJ: Allen-

held,

1983.

7. Clark, G. L., Judges

and the Cities. Chicago:

University

of

Chicago

Press, 1985.

8.

Clark,

G.

L.

and

M.

Dear. State

Apparatus:

Structures

and Language of Legitimacy.

Lon-

don:

George

Allen

and

Unwin,

1984.

9. Clark,

W.

A. V.

Residential

Mobility and

Neighborhood Change: Some Implications for

Racial Residential Segregation,

Urban

Geog-

raphy,

1

(1980), pp. 95-117.

10.

Clark,

W.

A.

V.

Judicial Intervention,

Busing,

and

Local

Residential

Change, Geography and

the

Urban Environment. Edited by

D.

Herbert

and

R.

J. Johnston,

1984.

11.

Clark,

W.

A.

V.

Residential Segregation

in

American

Cities:

A

Review and Interpretation,

Population

Research and Policy Review,

5

(1986),

pp. 95-127.

12.

Clark,

W. A.

V.

Theory

and Practice

in

Housing

Market

Research.

Stockholm:

Almqvist

and

Wiksell,

1987.

13.

Clark,

W.

A.

V.

Recent Research

on

Migration

and Mobility:

A

Review and

Interpretation,

Progress

in

Planning,

18

(1982), pp.

1-56.

14.

Clark,

W. A.

V. and

E.

G. Moore. Residential

Mobility

and Public

Programs:

Current

Gaps

Between

Theory

and

Practice, Journal of

Social

Issues,

38

(1982), pp.

35-50.

15. Coale, A. J. The History of the Human Popula-

tion,

Scientific American,

231

(1974), pp.41-51.

16. Desbarats, J.

Thai

Migration

to Los Angeles,

Geographical Review,

69

(1979), pp.

302-18.

17. Dickens, P.,

et al.

Housing

States

and

Localities.

London:

Methuen,

1985.

18.

Easterlin,

R.

Population and Economic

Change

in

Developing Countries.

Chicago: University

of Chicago

Press, 1980.

19.

Ehrlich,

P. R.

and

A.

Ehrlich.

Population

Re-

sources and Environment.

San

Francisco:

Free-

man, 1974.

20.

Farley,

R.

The

Residential

Segregation

of

Blacks from Whites:

Trends, Causes, and

Conse-

quences, Issues

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.

A

New Set

of

Spatial Interac-

tion

Models: The

Theory of

Competing Desti-

nations,

Environment and

Planning

A, 15

(1983), pp. 15-36.

23. Frey,

W.

Central

City White Flight: Racial

and

Non-Racial

Causes, American

Sociological

Review,

44

(1979),

425-48.

24.

Frey,

W.

Mover

Destination

Selectivity

and

the Changing

Suburbanization

of Metropolitan

Whites

and Blacks,

Demography, 22 (1985),

223-43.

25.

Frey,

W.

Migration

and Depopulation of

the

Metropolis: Regional

Restructuring or

Rural

Renaissance, American

Sociological

Review,

52

(1987),

pp. 240-57.

26.

Garcia,

P.

Immigration

Issues

in

Urban

Ecol-

ogy:

The

Case

of Los

Angeles,

Urban

Ethnicity

in

the

United States: New

Immigrants and

Old

Minorities. Edited

by

L.

Maldonado

and

J. Moore.

Sage

Publications, Urban

Affairs,

Annual

Reviews, Volume 29,

(1985), pp.73-100.

27.

Garcia,

P.

Immigration and

Language Issues

in

Urban

Ecology:

The Case of the Los

Angeles

Area.

Technical Report, Los

Alamitos, CA:

National

Center for

Bilingual

Research,

1985.

28.

Golant,

S.

Spatial

Context of

Residential

Moves

by

Elderly Persons,

International

Journal on

Aging and the

Environment,

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

Employ-

ment

in

a

Polycentric City: The

Case of Los

Angeles, Environment and Planning A, 18

(1986), pp.

161-73.

31.

Greenwood,

M.

Migration

and Economic

Growth in

the

United States. New York:

Aca-

demic Press. 1982.



23/24

124

ECONOMic

GEOGRAPHY

32.

Harris, R. A Political

Chameleon:

Class Segre-

gation

in Kingston, Ontario, 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 Constitutional

Conflict

in

American

Urban Areas.

London: Academic Press,

1984.

35.

J

ones, Ri.

C.

Patterns of

UndocumrnentedMigra-

tion: Mexico and

the United

Staies.

Totowa,

NJ:

Rowmnan

and Allenheld, 1984.

36. Kreckel,

R.

Unequal

Opportunity

Structure

and Labour

Market

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 Mobility

of Ameri-

cans:

An

International Comparison.

U.S.

Dept.

of

Consinerce,

Bureau

of the

Census,

Popula-

tion

Reports Special

Study Services, 64 (1978).

39.

Maldonado,

L. and J.

Moore. Urban Ethnicity

in

the United States:

New Immigrants and

Old

Minorities.

Sage Publications,

Urban Affairs,

Annual

Reviews,

Volume

29,

1985.

40. Martin, R. L. Getting the Labor Market into

Geographical

Perspective,

Environment and

Planning A,

18 (1986), pp.

569-72.

41. Massey,

1).

S. Spatial Division of

Labor: Social

Structures

and the Geography of

Production.

London: Methuen,

1984.

42. Massey,

D.

S.

and

N.

Denton.

Spatial

Assimila-

tion

as a

Socio-Economic

Outcome,

American

Sociological

Review,

50

(1985), pp.

94-106.

43. McCarthy,

K.

Qs

and

As

About

the

Future of

the

Three

Rs: A

Demographer's Perspective.

Santa

Monica,

CA: Rand Corporation,

P.

6972,

1984.

44.

McKinney,

S.

and

A. B.

Schnare. Trends

in

Residential Segregation

by Race,

1960-1980.

Washington,

lD.C.:

The Urban Institute,

1986.

45.

Moore,

E.

G. Mobility

Intention and

Subse-

quent

Relocation,

Urban

Geography,

7

(1986),

pp.

497-514.

46.

Moore,

E.

G.

and

.A.

V.

Clark.

Stable

Struc-

ture and

Local

Variation:

A

Comparison

of

Household Flows

in

Four

Metropolitan

Areas,

Urban Studies,

23

(1985),

pp.

185-96.

47.

Morrill,

R. The

Spatial Orgarisatiorn

of Society.

Belmont,

CA:

Wadsworth,

1970.

48.

Morrill,

R.

Review of International

Migration,

National

Policy

and Social

Justice,

Economic

Geography,

60

(1984),

pp.

253.

49. Nelson,

H.

J. and W.

A. V. Clark. Los

Angeles:

The

Metropolitan

Experience. Cambridge,

MA:

Ballinger, 1974.

50.

Oliver, M. and J. Johnson.

Interethnic Conflict

in an

Urban Ghetto: The

Case of Blacks

and

Latinos, Research, Social Movements, Con-

flict,

and Change.

Edited by

R. L. Radcliffe.

New

York:

JAI,

1986.

51. Pahl,

R.

Whose City. London:

Penguin

1975.

52. Piore,

M.

J.

and

C.

F.

Sabel.

The

Second Indus-

trial Divide.

New York: Basic

Books,

1984.

53. Plane,

D. Migration Space:

Doubly

Constrained

Gravity Model Mapping

of

Relative

Interstate

Separation, Annals,

Association of

American

Geographers,

74 (1984), pp.

244-56.

54. Pratt, G. Class Analysis and Urban Domestic

Property:

A

Critical Re-examination,

Interna-

tional

Journal of

Urban and

Regional

Research,

6

(1980), pp.

481-502.

55. Pratt,

G.

and

S.

Hanson. Gender,

Class and

Space, '

orthcoming,

Environment

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. Editorial: What

Happened to Macro-

economics, Environment and Planning A, 19

(1987), pp.

139-41.

58.

Rogers,

A.

Introduction to

Multiregional

Math-

ematical

Demography.

New York:

Wiley,

1975.

59.

Rossell,

C.

A

Review

of

the Empirical Research

in

Desegregation.

Institute for Public

Policy

Studies,

Vanderbilt University, Nashville,

Ten-

nessee,

1981.

60. Sack,

R.

Geography,

Geometry,

and Explana-

tion, Annals, Association

of American Geog-

raphers,

62

(1972), pp.

61-78.

61.

Scott,

A. and M.

Storper.

Production

Work and

Territory. Winchester,

MA:

George

Allen and

Unwin,

1986.

62.

Schelling,

T.

Microeconomics

and

Macrobe-

havior.

New

York:

W. W. Norton and Com-

pany,

1978.

63. Schnare,

A. B.

Residential

Segregation by

Race

and

U.S.

Metropolitan

Areas:

Analysis

Across

Cities and Over

Time. Washington,

D.C.: The

Urban

Institute,

1977.

64.

Soja, E.,

R.

Morales,

and

G.

Wolff. Urban Re-

structuring:

An

Analysis

of

Social

and

Spatial

Change

in

Los

Angeles,

Economic

Geography,

60

(1984),

pp.

195-230.

65.

Stapleton,

C.

Reformulation

of the

Family

Life



24/24

URBAN RESTRUCTURING

125

Cycle Concept,

Environment

and Planning A,

12 (1980),

pp. 1103-18.

66.

Sternlieb, G., J. W.

Hughes, and

C. 0.

Hughes.

Demographic

Trends and

Economic Reality.

New

Brunswick, NJ:

Center for Urban

Policy

Research, The State University of New Jersey,

1982.

67. Stewart, J.

Q.

and

W.

Warntz. Macrogeog-

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

Industries, Sunbelt,

Snowbelt,

Urban

Devel-

opment

and Regional

Restructuring.

Edited

by

L. Sawyers and

W.

Tabb.

Oxford,

1984.

69.

Taeuber,

K. housingg,

Schools,

and

Incremen-

tal

Segregative

Effects,

Annals

AAPSS,

441

(1979),

pp.

157-67.

70. Taeuber,

K., F.

Monfort, and

P.

Massey.

The

Trend

in

Metropolitan

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

Models.

London:

George

Allen and

Unwin,

1986.

reestruturação urbana e demografia

Documents