1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, ConservativeFlight and Geographic Polarization
L. Jason Anastasopoulos
Democracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation,Harvard Kennedy School of Government
February 25,2014
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
(Why) Do Partisans Sort?
Recent research suggests that the geographic clustering oflike minded partisans is a cause of polarization inCongress. (Bishop 2008; Hui 2011; Nall 2012)May explain why attitude polarization has not increased asmuch as polarization in Congress. (Hui 2011)But what causes sorting?Other than interstate highway development (Nall 2012),mechanisms remain unclear.
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
Diversity and White Flight
Scholarship across several disciplines finds that diversityincreases are associated with white flight and spatialsegregation. (Boustan 2010; Card, Mas and Rothstein2008; Cutler, Glaeser and Vigdor 1999, etc...)Great Migration → Great White Flight.
Post-WWII suburbanization due in part to white flight.(Boustan 2010)Best causal estimates suggest 2.7 white departures perblack migrant. (Boustan 2010)
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
Schelling Redux
Schelling (1971) provided a mechanism for this pattern ofdiversity increases and white flight.Showed that segregation emerges when people onlyslightly prefer neighbors similar to themselves.Willingness to relocate depends upon “tolerance”: theextent to which agents prefer neighbors similar tothemselves.If “tolerance” is correlated with political ideology, flightaccompanying diversity increases should result ingeographic polarization.
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
The Migration-Assimilation-Polarization Theory
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
Political Ideology and Schelling Tolerance
Residential choice questions from Multi-City Study onUrban Inequality (1992-1994) and General Social Survey(2002).Political ideology is the strongest predictor of residentialdiversity preferences and willingness to move inresponse to changes in diversity among whiterespondents.
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
MCSUI Data: Background
Would you feel comfortable in the (7%/20%/33%/53% minority)neighborhood?
If uncomfortable, would you be willing to move out of the (7%/20%/33%/53%minority) neighborhood?
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
MCSUI Data: Model
Yc = αc + βc Ideology + XΓc + mj + ε (1)
Yc is a binary dependent variable (comfort/will move out)for each card/neighborhood minority proportionc = 7%,20%,33%,53%.Ideology is the political ideology of the respondent,X is a matrix of respondent characteristics which includeage, sex, years of education, family income and interviewerrace.mj are city fixed effects.
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
MCSUI 1992-1994 Data: Results - Comfort Levels
White Respondent Ideology v. Predicted Probability ofDiscomfort in Each of the Four Neighborhoods N = 2407
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
MCSUI 1992-1994 Data: Results - Comfort Levels
Odds Ratio Coefficients from Logistic Regression of ComfortLevels (Y53%) at 53% Minority Neighborhood, N = 2407
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
MCSUI 1992-1994 Data: Results - Moving
White Respondent Ideology v. Predicted Probability of Movingfrom Any Neighborhood Conditional on Discomfort, N = 1695
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
GSS 2002 Data: Background
Image Presented to Respondents in the 2000 General SocialSurvey. Respondents were asked to indicate their idealethnic/racial background of each of the 14 houses surroundingthem. Their choices were: Asian, Black, Hispanic or White.
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
GSS 2002 Data: Average Preferred % White byIdeology
Average % White (of 14 surrounding houses) by IdeologyAmong White Respondents with 95% Confidence Intervals,GSS 2000
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
GSS 2002 Data: Preferred % White by Ideology
%White = α + βIdeology + XΓ + cj + ε
DV: Neighborhood % WhiteVARIABLES Original Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
Ideology 0.036*** 0.192***(0.006)
Age 0.002** 0.136**(0.001)
Education -0.001 -0.014(0.002)
Income 0.000 0.018(0.001)
Sex -0.036 -0.056(0.021)
Marital -0.001 0.004(0.007)
Employment 0.003 0.020(0.005)
Children 0.014** 0.078**(0.007)
Observations 770R-squared 0.138
Standard errors in parentheses*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
The Big Katrina Sort: Background
Unbiased assessment of ideological Schelling modelrequires exogenous source of variation in area diversity.Hurricane Katrina migration to Houston works well:
Overwhelming majority of Katrina migrants wereAfrican-American.2005 African-American Population in Houston: 866,016.2007 African-American Population in Houston: 979,717.A 13% increase in the African-American population in 2years!Majority of evacuees assigned to housing by Harris CountyHousing Authority.
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
The Big Katrina Sort: Background
If the MAP Theory is correct, Katrina migration shouldresult in:
1 Conservative white flight where evacuees settled.2 Geographic polarization between Harris County and
surrounding counties.
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
Measuring Evacuee Presence
Independent VariableApartment-building level counts of Katrina evacueesconducted by Harris County Housing Authority (donated byRick Wilson (Rice University)).Geocoded by Texas A&M Geoservices Geocoder.Aggregated to Census block group and Census tract levelsof geography.
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
Measuring Evacuee Presence
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
Preview of Findings
1 Schools in conservative Census tracts with evacueesexperience substantial white enrollment declines shortlypost-Katrina, but not pre-Katrina.
2 Conservative Census tracts receiving Katrina evacueesexperience steep declines in the white population. Similareffect not found among liberal tracts.
3 Polarization between Harris County and counties within100km of Harris increases dramatically post-Katrina.
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
Conservative White Flight in HISD Schools
∆Whitet−(t−1) = α + βt−(t−1)Katrina2005 + sj + ∆εt−(t−1) (2)
∆Whitet−(t−1) - One year change in white studentenrollment.Katrina2005 - Number of Katrina evacuees enrolled in HISDschools as of September 13, 2005.sj - School type (elementary, middle, high) fixed effects.
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
Conservative White Flight in HISD Schools
∆Whitet−(t−1) = α + βt−(t−1)Katrina2005 + sj + ∆εt−(t−1)
2000 precinct-level presidential election data used toseparate schools into “liberal” and “conservative” schools.Conservative schools - avg % Republican for precinctsw/in a 3km radius were above the HISD median of 31%.Liberal schools - avg % Republican for precincts w/in a3km radius were less than or equal to the HISD median of31%.
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
Conservative White Flight in HISD Schools
Conservative Area Schools(1) (2) (3) (4)
VARIABLES ∆White2003−2004 ∆White2004−2005 ∆White2005−2006 ∆White2007−2008
Katrina2005 -0.0808 0.00148 -0.132*** -0.145***(0.100) (0.00183) (0.0503) (0.0388)
Observations 140 140 140 137R-squared 0.055 0.017 0.114 0.086
Liberal Area SchoolsKatrina2005 -0.00458 0 -0.00567 -0.0201
(0.0128) (0) (0.0111) (0.0122)Observations 131 131 131 122R-squared 0.021 0.080 0.564
Robust standard errors in parentheses*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Difference-in-Difference Regressions: One-Year Change in White Enrollment v. Number of Katrina Evacuee
Students in 2005
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
Conservative White Flight in Harris County CensusTracts
∆Whitei,10−00 = α+ βEvacueesi + γ∆Popi,10−00 + εi,10−00 (3)
∆Whitei,10−00 - Change in Census tract white populationbetween 2000 and 2010.Evacueesi - Number of Katrina evacuees in Census tractas of October 2005.Popi,10−00 - Change in Census tract population between2000 and 2010.Census tracts divided by average 2000 tract Republicanvote share.
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
Conservative White Flight in Harris County CensusTracts
% Republican Presidential Vote, 2000All Tracts 70-100% 50-70% 30-50% 0-30%
VARIABLES ∆Whitepop ∆Whitepop ∆Whitepop ∆Whitepop ∆Whitepop
Evacuees -0.909** -5.241*** -1.414 -0.549** -0.626***(0.351) (1.942) (0.956) (0.265) (0.136)
∆Tractpop 0.305*** 0.465*** 0.0997*** -0.0144 0.0713**(0.0596) (0.0494) (0.0295) (0.0426) (0.0287)
Observations 613 149 195 149 120R-squared 0.517 0.873 0.165 0.032 0.127
Cluster robust standard errors in parentheses*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Regression of Change in Census White Population on Katrina Evacuee Counts, 2000-2010
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
Geographic Polarization: Overview
According to the MAP Theory, increases in diversity as theresult of Katrina migration should result in:
1 Conservative white flight out of Harris County and intoneighboring counties post-Katrina.
2 Decreases in Republican vote share in Harris County.3 Increases in polarization between Harris County and
neighboring counties.
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
Harris Outflows
One Year % Change in Outflows (Migration) from Harris County to Surrounding Counties
IRS Series on Income (SOI) data tracks outflows from Harris to all other counties in the US.
Track outflows from Harris to counties within 100km of Harris that did not receive Katrina migrants.
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
Polarization Between Harris and Surrounding Counties
Republican Vote Share For Texas Governor, Harris v. Surrounding Counties
Difference in vote share for Rick Perry (2002-2010) between regions increased dramatically post-Katrina.
Rick Perry was the incumbent in all three elections.
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
Polarization Between Harris and Surrounding Counties
Republican Vote Share For Texas Governor, Harris v. Surrounding Counties with Highest Post-KatrinaInflows
Polarization between Harris and counties with the greatest % change in inflows from Harris is even morepronounced.
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
Estimating the Causal Effect of Katrina Migration onRepublican Vote Share in Harris County
Ideally, want to measure Republican vote share in Harriscounty with Katrina migration and Republican vote share ina counterfactual Harris county in the absence of Katrinamigration.Subtraction of the two post-Katrina provides a causalestimate of the average treatment effect of Katrinamigration on Republican vote share.Synthetic control method (Abadie, Diamond andHainmueller (2014)) provides a tool which enables us toconstruct a counterfactual Harris county based on relevantcovariates.
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
Synthetic Harris v. Harris County
Treated Synthetic% Black (2000) 18.5 18.4% Black (1990) 19.2 19.1% Republican (2002) 55.9 56.9% Republican (1998) 65.7 66.7% Republican (1990) 48.1 48.9
Covariate Balance, Harris County v. Synthetic Harris County
Synthetic controls constructs a counterfactual Harris county by generating a set of weights for each Texas“donor county” that did not experience Katrina migration.
These weights are generated such that, combined, they provide the best balance on a selected set ofpre-Katrina covariates.
After removing counties that experienced Katrina migration, 244 “donor counties” remained.
Synthetic controls algorithm achieved balance on Republican vote share in 1990, 1998 and 2002 andproprtion black in 1990 and 2000.
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
Synthetic Harris v. Harris County
5055
6065
70R
epub
lican
Vot
e S
hare
for
Tex
as G
over
nor
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year
Harris County Synthetic Harris County
Republican Vote Share for Governor of Texas, Harris County v. Synthetic Harris County: 1990-2010
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
Placebo Tests
Gap between Republican vote share in Harris and thecounterfactual Harris county is large: 8.7% in 2006 and12.5%.Still, the magnitude of this gap may be due to chancevariation in the model.If gap is still large relative to other “placebo” counties notexperiencing Katrina migration, this gives us greaterconfidence in our results.
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization
1: Introduction 2: Ideology and Tolerance 3: The Big Katrina Sort
Placebo Tests
Placebo Gaps, Synthetic v. Actual Counties in Texas not Receiving Katrina Migrants
Harris county gap is substantially larger than other placebo counties.
Probability of observing a gap as large in the post-Katrina period by chance alone is 0.0004.
L. Jason AnastasopoulosDemocracy Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Big and Little Sorts: Diversity, Conservative Flight and Geographic Polarization