Sorting or Steering: Experimental Evidence on the Economic Effects of Housing Discrimination

P. Christensen, C. Timmins
{"title":"Sorting or Steering: Experimental Evidence on the Economic Effects of Housing Discrimination","authors":"P. Christensen, C. Timmins","doi":"10.3386/W24826","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Housing discrimination is illegal. However, paired-tester audit experiments have revealed evidence of discrimination in the interactions between potential buyers and real estate agents, raising concern about whether certain groups are systematically excluded from the beneficial effects of healthy neighborhoods. Using data from HUD’s most recent Housing Discrimination Study and micro-level data on key attributes of neighborhoods in 28 US cities, we find strong evidence of discrimination in the characteristics of neighborhoods towards which individuals are steered. Conditional upon the characteristics of the house suggested by the audit tester, minorities are significantly more likely to be steered towards neighborhoods with less economic opportunity and greater exposures to crime and local pollutants. We find that holding locational preferences or income constant, discriminatory steering alone can contribute substantially to the disproportionate number of minority households found in high poverty neighborhoods in the United States. The steering effect is also large enough to fully explain the differential in proximity to Superfund sites among African American mothers. These results have important implications for studies of “neighborhood effects” and confirm an important mechanism underlying observed correlations between race and pollution in the environmental justice literature. Our results also suggest that the basic utility maximization assumptions underlying hedonic and residential sorting models may often be violated, resulting in an important distortion in the provision of local public goods.","PeriodicalId":18934,"journal":{"name":"National Bureau of Economic Research","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"36","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"National Bureau of Economic Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3386/W24826","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 36

Abstract

Housing discrimination is illegal. However, paired-tester audit experiments have revealed evidence of discrimination in the interactions between potential buyers and real estate agents, raising concern about whether certain groups are systematically excluded from the beneficial effects of healthy neighborhoods. Using data from HUD’s most recent Housing Discrimination Study and micro-level data on key attributes of neighborhoods in 28 US cities, we find strong evidence of discrimination in the characteristics of neighborhoods towards which individuals are steered. Conditional upon the characteristics of the house suggested by the audit tester, minorities are significantly more likely to be steered towards neighborhoods with less economic opportunity and greater exposures to crime and local pollutants. We find that holding locational preferences or income constant, discriminatory steering alone can contribute substantially to the disproportionate number of minority households found in high poverty neighborhoods in the United States. The steering effect is also large enough to fully explain the differential in proximity to Superfund sites among African American mothers. These results have important implications for studies of “neighborhood effects” and confirm an important mechanism underlying observed correlations between race and pollution in the environmental justice literature. Our results also suggest that the basic utility maximization assumptions underlying hedonic and residential sorting models may often be violated, resulting in an important distortion in the provision of local public goods.
分类还是导向:住房歧视经济效应的实验证据
住房歧视是非法的。然而,配对测试者审计实验揭示了潜在买家和房地产经纪人之间互动中存在歧视的证据,这引发了人们对某些群体是否被系统性地排除在健康社区的有益影响之外的担忧。利用HUD最新的住房歧视研究数据和28个美国城市社区关键属性的微观数据,我们发现了个人被引导到的社区特征中存在歧视的有力证据。根据审计测试人员建议的房屋特征,少数民族更有可能被引导到经济机会较少、犯罪和当地污染物较多的社区。我们发现,保持地理位置偏好或收入不变,仅仅是歧视性的指导就会在很大程度上导致美国高度贫困社区中少数族裔家庭数量不成比例。这种导向效应也足够大,足以完全解释非洲裔美国母亲在接近超级基金地点方面的差异。这些结果对“邻里效应”的研究具有重要意义,并证实了环境正义文献中观察到的种族与污染之间相关性的重要机制。我们的研究结果还表明,享乐和居住分类模型的基本效用最大化假设可能经常被违反,从而导致地方公共产品提供的重要扭曲。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信