Jacob Faber on Spatial Inequality: Race, Place & Segregation

Urban spatial segregation reflects environmental racism patterns where marginalized communities are concentrated in environmentally hazardous areas. In Vitória, the mangrove areas where Black communities live are stigmatized as 'dirty' while privileged areas remain protected. This spatial pattern reflects broader patterns of environmental racism where certain populations are systematically exposed to environmental hazards.

Socio-spatial segregation creates unequal urban living conditions where some residents have access to proper infrastructure while others live in communities without adequate planning. This segregation is expressed through housing quality differences and access to services. Environmental racism refers to the unequal distribution of environmental burdens, where marginalized and racialized communities disproportionately face pollution, health problems, and climate change impacts. These communities, often low-income migrants from rural areas, occupy environmentally vulnerable areas with inadequate housing and survival conditions. The lack of urban planning exacerbates these inequalities, making proper infrastructure and resource distribution essential for environmental justice.

Environmental racism refers to the disproportionate exposure of marginalized racial groups to environmental hazards and the unequal distribution of environmental benefits. In Brazil, this manifests through the concentration of sanitation problems in areas inhabited by Black, Indigenous, and quilombola populations. The spatial dimension of environmental racism means that geographic location becomes a marker of exclusion, with certain areas systematically denied adequate environmental infrastructure.

Research by Robert Bullard shows that in highly segregated areas, residents face higher rates of environmental hazards including three times more toxic air, almost twice the density of oil and gas wells, more natural gas leaks, and closer proximity to dirty energy sources. Mothers and babies in these neighborhoods have more adverse pregnancy outcomes linked to heat and pollution, and fewer resources to recover from climate change impacts like heat waves, flooding, and other environmental stressors.

Environmental hazards and disasters disproportionately affect racial minorities and residents of peripheral urban areas. Communities of color and those living in marginalized neighborhoods often occupy land that is more susceptible to flooding, pollution, and other environmental dangers. This creates a pattern where systemic racism intersects with environmental policy to produce unequal exposure to environmental risks.

Researchers measure geographic variation in upward mobility by linking census data with federal income tax returns using Social Security Numbers. This linkage traces children's economic outcomes across generations. The analysis focuses on children born between 1978-1983 who were old enough for reliable earnings measurement by age 30. Researchers calculate percentile ranks comparing each child's income to peers of the same birth year, controlling for age-related income growth patterns. To quantify geographic differences, researchers fit regression lines to scatterplots showing the relationship between parent income percentiles and child income percentiles. The predicted value at the 25th percentile of parent income distribution provides a single statistic summarizing mobility rates for low-income families in each area. Statistical modeling is essential because raw data at very local levels produces noisy estimates due to small sample sizes. This methodology reveals that even within cities, mobility varies dramatically—sometimes by factors of ten—depending on specific neighborhood characteristics.

This comprehensive section presents groundbreaking research on geographic variation in intergenerational mobility using de-identified tax records of 10 million American children born 1980-1982. The research reveals dramatic differences in upward mobility across U.S. commuting zones, with some areas exceeding 16% mobility rates (higher than Denmark and Canada) while others like Atlanta and Charlotte fall below 4.5% (lower than any country with data). The presentation distinguishes between cross-country comparisons (contaminated by confounding factors) and local geographic analysis (allowing clearer identification of causal factors). Key findings include: (1) Where you grow up matters most for poor children—rich children show similar outcomes regardless of location; (2) Local patterns reveal that Native American reservations show dramatically lower mobility despite surrounding high-mobility areas; (3) Even within major metropolitan areas like New York City, outcomes vary dramatically by borough—from 99.9% in Manhattan to 16.8% in Queens for low-income children. The section develops a comprehensive framework for measuring intergenerational mobility using percentile rank associations rather than simple bottom-to-top statistics, demonstrating that plotting children's average percentile rank against parents' percentile rank produces an almost perfectly linear relationship across all areas. The research then presents rigorous causal evidence that where you grow up has substantial effects on economic outcomes, using quasi-experimental designs exploiting variation in when families move and comparing siblings within families to isolate environmental effects from family characteristics. Analysis shows each additional year of exposure to a better environment improves outcomes by approximately 3.8%, with no critical early childhood cutoff—interventions remain beneficial throughout childhood.

Research from the US Census Bureau's Opportunity Atlas and Harvard's Opportunity Insights Institute reveals that a child's residential zip code is a more reliable indicator of their social mobility and future economic prospects than any other national indicator. This challenges the meritocratic ideal that individual effort alone determines success.

Research using historical census data (1900-1940) and modern IRS data (1980-2010) reveals the geography of opportunity has fundamentally changed. The South remained persistently low in mobility across both periods due to deep structural factors. The Upper Midwest transformed from a low-mobility agricultural region to a high-mobility area. The West Coast and parts of the Northeast and Midwest experienced mobility deterioration. This demonstrates both persistence in some regions and substantial change in others, shaped by broader economic structural transformations.

Intergenerational mobility—the ability to move up the economic ladder compared to parents—exists but varies significantly by country and region. Harvard research shows those born in the bottom income quintile have only a 7-10% chance of reaching the top quintile, while those born in the top quintile have five times greater chance of remaining there. The Brookings Institute found 43% of those born poor stay poor, and 39% of those born wealthy stay wealthy. The Opportunity Atlas reveals that zip codes dramatically affect outcomes, with opportunity neighborhoods having higher graduation rates, lower crime, and more continuing education. The Brookings Institute identified a 'success sequence' of six steps: graduating high school, working full-time, delaying children, continuing education, maintaining job stability, and achieving family/financial stability. Doing just three of these steps increases the chance of moving out of poverty to 97%.

School funding based on property taxes compounds residential segregation because property values are tied to neighborhood demographics. However, the extent to which property taxes drive school funding varies by state, and racial disparities in education exist even in states where property taxes play a smaller role. While school funding reform is important, it is not a panacea for the effects of residential segregation. The concentration of disadvantaged children in schools creates challenges that cannot be overcome by funding alone - the root cause is the segregation of metropolitan areas.

Public schools are primarily funded through property taxes. Neighborhoods with better schools have higher property values, which generates more tax revenue for schools, creating a feedback loop where better schools increase home values and vice versa. This system means housing segregation directly translates to unequal educational resources, with wealthier, predominantly white neighborhoods receiving better-funded schools, teachers, and facilities.

Historically, U.S. public schools have been funded primarily through local property taxes, creating vast disparities between wealthy and poor districts. Poor districts must levy much higher property tax rates to generate funding comparable to affluent areas. This funding structure, combined with residential segregation by income, created significant educational inequities that motivated school finance reform movements.

The primary way Americans pay for public schools is through property taxes, creating a feedback loop between housing values and school quality. People living in more valuable homes have better-funded local schools, better-paid teachers, better facilities, and more resources. Better schools increase neighborhood property values, which in turn generate more tax revenue for schools. This cycle reinforces housing segregation and educational inequality, as schools in segregated neighborhoods receive less funding, perpetuating the cycle.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 provided federal funding for public schools to train teachers and buy materials, with extra funding for impoverished areas. Education is primarily funded through local property taxes—a system that continues because the 1973 San Antonio v. Rodriguez decision allowed it. Like Plessy v. Ferguson, this was federal approval of unequal funding: rich neighborhoods have well-funded schools while public housing projects have barely funded schools.