Fall 2004

Practicing Planner

Copyright by American Planning Association

Income Disparities, Economic Segregation, and the Role of Planners

By Jerry Weitz, AICP

Practicing Planner is guided by several policies of the American Institute of Certified Planners and the American Planning Association. Those policies include focused attention on "supertopics" such as Safe Growth and housing, the AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, the APA Development Plan, and the publication's own set of editorial guidelines. Among these policies is a desire to develop materials that express the ways in which planners can advance diversity and build nondiscriminatory practices in our communities (paraphrased from the APA Development Plan, Policy 2.3).

In its drive toward nondiscrimination, representatives of AICP often place emphasis on reforming racially discriminatory public policies. We probably will continue to debate whether race is a major contributing factor in increasing social and economic inequality, though many view it as the principal cause of economic segregation. My purpose here is not to enter that debate, but rather to underscore a broader type of discrimination against the lower economic classes that is independent of, though likely caused in large part by, race.

Before we can develop materials to advance diversity and combat discrimination, we must better understand the problem. I contend the problem statement should include not just racial discrimination, but also income disparities and economic segregation. These topics have not received comprehensive treatment by planners, and, indeed, few of us are willing to talk openly about the plight of the poor.

In this essay I summarize findings about the increasing economic disparities among classes and regions in the United States. These points are drawn exclusively from findings published in Place Matters: Metropolitics for the Twenty-first Century, by Peter Dreier, John Mollenkopf, and Todd Swanstrom (University Press of Kansas, 2001). I am indebted to these authors and their book for articulating the problems of income disparities and economic segregation. Planners may not be fully aware of the magnitude of these problems and their associated issues and implications.

The middle-class jobs of the industrial economy are fading. This may end the prior debate about whether the middle class is shrinking. Wealth created in the United States has not flowed proportionally to all segments of society. The U.S. has the greatest income and wealth disparities of any advanced industrial society. Most income growth has been monopolized by the rich and super-rich (Place Matters, p. 13).

In the 1960s, segregation between high- and low-status workers declined (p. 45). Today, however, economic, political, and social inequalities are piling on top of one another (p. 24). Low-wage workers are falling further behind high-wage earners. According to Dreier, Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom (p. 15), the average CEO made 109 times what the average worker earned in 1999. Ironically, according to the authors, the economic boom of the 1990s has actually hurt low-income renters. They also find that "nowhere in the country can a family with one full-time minimum-wage worker (earning $5.15 per hour) afford the cost of a two-bedroom apartment at the 'fair-market' rent" (p. 17).

Low-income people are increasingly unlikely to "escape" from their economic position of poverty. There are few "rags-to-riches" stories, and poor families are increasing their annual working hours. The rising tide (i.e., economic boom of the 1990s) has lifted some but not others (p. 18-19). Current housing markets are "neither free nor fair" (p. 31). Economic segregation has increased since the 1970s (p. 32).

Inequalities are occurring not only between low-income and high-income households, but also among the different regions of the U.S. According to Dreier, Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom (p. 34), cities on the country's two coasts did better economically than cities in the interior United States. As such, "the coastal-interior gap is rapidly replacing the North–South gap as the primary regional divide." The inequality among regions is increasing, and poor regions are falling behind.

Even so, the larger inequalities are within regions, not between or among them (p. 36). Poverty is becoming more prevalent in inner suburbs (p. 39), the gap between rich and poor suburbs is widening, and some suburbs are doing worse than their central cities (p. 41). Areas of concentrated poverty have grown from 1970 to 1990 in terms of geographical size, the number of census tracts, total population, as a percentage of overall population, and in terms of the percentage of poor persons living within them (p. 47). Areas of urban blight more than doubled in land area between 1970 and 1990 (p. 48).

Families choose to live in places based on their class and status aspirations (p. 44), and households with more money choose to flee those who make less money (p. 46). Racial segregation has not necessarily caused the increase of economic segregation since the 1970s, though many contend it is a chief cause. Dreier, Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom observe (p. 50) that between 1970 and 1990 in the United States, "the concentration of white poor increased twice as fast as black or Hispanic concentrated poverty." Nonetheless, we must also acknowledge that race is "deeply implicated" in concentrated poverty and that blacks are many times more likely than whites to live in areas of concentrated poverty (p. 50). An exclusive focus on racial discrimination may, however, divert attention from a broader economic segregation that exists independently of race.

As planners, we can characterize these observations in only one way — disturbing. The planning profession needs to reflect and then act on these findings in two ways. First, we must identify and resist public policies that contribute to persistent economic and racial inequities. These include current practices that separate prosperous suburbs from distressed suburbs and central cities. When we look in the mirror, planners see that we are responsible in part for preserving exclusion via our administration of zoning codes and subdivision regulations. Indeed, combating exclusionary zoning and promoting inclusionary housing practices are often mentioned as remedies within the realm of planners' responsibilities. Second, we must identify, suggest, and then perfect new policies that reduce inequalities. If they cannot be eliminated altogether, at least begin to refine policies that close the gaps and inequalities among classes and races.

To accomplish these objectives, scholars of urban politics have shown how the plight of central cities and inner suburbs can influence the conditions in wealthier suburbs. In short, the suburban dependency hypothesis suggests that the entire region's fiscal and social health depends in part on how well central cities and inner suburbs are doing. Such a line of reasoning is compelling and gives planners a strong argument for convincing policy makers to do more for areas of concentrated poverty and the underclass.

Some of the policies needed to reduce inequalities and disparities in wealth are well beyond the sphere of influence of local land-use planners. For instance, scholars have observed that redistribution of wealth cannot be done effectively at the local level, since people can simply move to a local jurisdiction that does not redistribute its wealth. For this reason, we might accept as a given that the redistribution of income and wealth is an issue for the federal government, not local governments. Indeed, the growing disparity among the regions of the U.S. is an issue certainly beyond the reach of local governments and even our weak regional institutions. The growing disparities among regions was recognized by President Richard Nixon in the 1970s, when he proposed — unsuccessfully — certain policies to better balance subnational, or regional, growth in the nation.

What, then, can planners do to reduce growing inequalities? How can we increase the standard of living for the poor, improve regional economies, and provide more economically balanced places to live? It is impossible to even begin outlining a list of possible actions here. Dreier, Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom provide many suggestions about how to address economic segregation. Readers interested in those recommendations are referred to their work, Place Matters.

Social polarization and economic segregation are becoming increasingly severe. Planners must recognize the problem and begin to place greater attention on policies that help narrow income and wealth disparities. In closing, I offer a few thoughts on what policies planners can propose and advocate to address the widening economic disparities in our communities.

Areas of concentrated poverty require redevelopment or rehabilitation. As noted above, such areas are growing larger and encompassing the suburbs now. We need better templates for balanced redevelopment, and we know we cannot rely on 1950s-style urban removal.

The physical disparities between the locations of where poor people live and where their potential jobs are must be reduced through regional jobs-housing balancing policies. Planners need to perfect models of new development that allow for neighborhoods with households of diverse incomes (i.e., mixed-income housing).

We need to combat the continued sprawl of our regional and local settlement patterns, which facilitate the further separation of income classes.

There are policies within the realm of influence of planners that can reduce or prevent further economic segregation. It is up to us to recognize the magnitude of the problem, then identify and implement the most effective policies to reduce income disparities and economic segregation.