Changing the geography of opportunity by expanding residential choice: Lessons from the Gautreaux program

Rosenbaum, James E.

doi:10.1080/10511482.1995.9521186

Cited by 474 publications

(344 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

328

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Counterfactual Causal Framework I focus here on providing an intuitive rather than formal explanation of the counterfactual causal framework (Rubin 1974(Rubin , 1977(Rubin , 1991Rosenbaum and Rubin 1983a, 1983b, 1985Rosenbaum 1984aRosenbaum , 1984bRosenbaum , 1995Holland 1986; formal reviews can be found in Winship and Morgan [1999] or Winship and Sobel [in press]). This framework borrows both the logic and language of experiments.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many algorithms for matching exist, but I use a variant of the computationally simple algorithm called "nearest available pair matching," which balances covariates well under most conditions (P. Rosenbaum 1995). I allow control cases to serve as a match for multiple treatment cases and constrain matches to have differences in treatment probabilities of less than two percentage points.…”

Section: Propensity Score Matchingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Counterfactual Models of Neighborhood Effects: The Effect of Neighborhood Poverty on Dropping Out and Teenage Pregnancy

Harding

2003

American Journal of Sociology

519

353

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates the causal effects of neighborhood on high school dropping out and teenage pregnancy within a counterfactual framework. It shows that when two groups of children, identical at age 10 on observed factors, experience different neighborhoods during adolescence, those in high-poverty neighborhoods are more likely to drop out of high school and have a teenage pregnancy than those in low-poverty neighborhoods. Causal inferences from such associations have been plagued by the possibility of selection bias. Using a new method for sensitivity analysis, these effects are shown to be robust to selection bias. Unobserved factors would have to be unreasonably strong to account for the associations between neighborhood and the outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Propensity Score Matchingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Counterfactual Models of Neighborhood Effects: The Effect of Neighborhood Poverty on Dropping Out and Teenage Pregnancy

Harding

2003

American Journal of Sociology

519

353

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…14 While there is quasi-experimental evidence of the existence of neighborhood externalities on educational attainment, employment, and wages (Rosenbaum (1995), Rubinowitz and Rosenbaum (2000), Mendenhall et al (2006), Bayer et al (2008)), as well as on adults' contemporaneous employment and wages (Rosenbaum (1995), Rubinowitz and Rosenbaum (2000), Aliprantis and Richter (2014), Bayer et al (2008)), there is also quasiexperimental evidence that changing the neighborhood alone (ie, perhaps not changing schools) is not sufficient to affect children's outcomes (Oreopoulos (2003)). There is disagreement about how to interpret the experimental results from the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) housing mobility program (Ludwig et al (2008), Clampet-Lundquist and Massey (2008), Sampson (2008), Aliprantis (2014a)).…”

Section: Production Function Specificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neighborhood Dynamics and the Distribution of Opportunity

Aliprantis

Carroll

2015

Working Paper (Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wilson (1987) argued that policies ending racial discrimination would not equalize opportunity without addressing residential sorting and neighborhood externalities. This paper studies related counterfactual policies using an overlapping-generations dynamic general equilibrium model of residential sorting and intergenerational human capital accumulation. In the model, households choose where to live and how much to invest toward the production of their child's human capital. The return on parents' investment is determined in part by the child's ability and in part by an externality determined by the human capital in their neighborhood. We calibrate the model with two neighborhoods and neighborhood-specifi c production technologies to data from Chicago when mobility was restricted by race. We then conduct three numerical experiments by eliminating the restriction on neighborhood choice, equalizing production technologies, or both. We fi nd that allowing residential mobility generates persistent income inequality, even when technologies are equalized across neighborhoods. Equalizing technologies only equalizes opportunity for residents in the originally segregated neighborhood when high-income households reside there. Our fi ndings suggest that policies aimed at improving outcomes in impoverished areas should feature incentives for high-income households to stay or migrate into the neighborhood.JEL codes: D31, D58, E24, J24, R23.

show abstract

“…A rare quasi-experiment examined a number of outcomes for low-income African-American families who received housing vouchers to move to either middle-income, predominantly White suburbs or to low-income, predominantly African-American city neighborhoods (Rosenbaum, 1995). It is important to note that families were assigned to neighborhoods as residential units became available, and therefore initial neighborhood preference had no bearing on where families ultimately moved.…”

Section: African-american Achievementmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Conundrum of School Desegregation: Positive Student Outcomes and Waning Support

Schofield¹,

Hausmann²

2004

lawreview

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision was a landmark in many respects. Most importantly, it overturned the separate but equal doctrine embodied in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), laying the groundwork for massive change in our society. In particular, it laid the basis for dismantling state supported racial segregation in education, housing, and other important areas of life. For social scientists there is another, though less important, reason why the Brown decision was so crucial. It was the first case in which a Supreme Court decision specifically mentioned the input of social science experts (Cook, 1979). Although there is a lack of agreement about how important a role this input played, social scientists were buoyed by the fact that a statement signed by a large number of leading social scientists was cited.

show abstract

Changing the geography of opportunity by expanding residential choice: Lessons from the Gautreaux program

Cited by 474 publications

References 9 publications

Counterfactual Models of Neighborhood Effects: The Effect of Neighborhood Poverty on Dropping Out and Teenage Pregnancy

Counterfactual Models of Neighborhood Effects: The Effect of Neighborhood Poverty on Dropping Out and Teenage Pregnancy

Neighborhood Dynamics and the Distribution of Opportunity

The Conundrum of School Desegregation: Positive Student Outcomes and Waning Support

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About