78-5805 ARNOLD, Judith Warren, 1950- SOCIAL STATUS RESIDENTIAL DISTRIBUTION IN METROPOLITAN PUERTO RICO: 1960-1970. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1977 Sociology, general
University Microfilms International,Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
© 1978
JUDITH WARREN ARNOLD
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SOCIAL STATUS RESIDENTIAL DISTRIBUTION IN
METROPOLITAN PUERTO RICO: 1960-1970
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of The Ohio State University
By
Judith Warren Arnold, B. A., M. A.
★ * ★ ★
The Ohio State University
1977
Reading Committee: Approved By
Professor Kent P. Schwirian Professor Simon Dinitz Professor Robert M. Jiobu Adviser Department of Sociology DEDICATION
For Ethel Fowler Powlison whose encouragement never diminished.
ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my appreciation to all who gave direction, aid, and sympathy to me during this undertaking. It has been a fortunate and rewarding experience during my graduate school years to make the acquaintance of many people, but three in particular greatly increased my knowledge in many ways. For furthering my comprehension of methodol ogy and statistics and their many subtleties, many thanks go to Dr.
Robert Jiobu. For augmenting and abetting my familiarity with matters of criminology and the state of sociology in general, my thanks go to
Dr. Simon Dinitz. For nuturing and sustaining my interest in human ecology, methodology, and life after graduate school, and for major guidance throughout my graduate career, my greatest thanks and appreci ation to Dr. Kent P. Schwirian. To each of them I owe a debt of grat itude that extends beyond mere knowledge of my subject matter.
To my peers, who made certain that I maintained some semblance of humanity and humility during this process, thank you. I needed that.
Finally, thank you, Ruthy Keyes, for typing what I couldn't, when
I couldn't and doing it very well and very quickly. VITA
March 12, 1950 ...... Bom-Geneva, New York
1972 ...... B. A., University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire
1973 ...... M. A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
1973-1975 ...... Teaching Associate, Department of Sociology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
1976 ...... Lecturer, Department of Sociology, The Ohio State University, Lima, Ohio
1976-1977 Teaching Associate, Department of Sociology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio; Instructor, Department of Psychology and Sociology, Otterbein College, Westerville, Ohio
1977- . Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Bradley University, Peoria, Illinois
PRESENTATIONS
"Primacy: A Puzzling Phenomenon Revisited." North Central Sociological Association Meetings, Columbus, Ohio, May 1975.
"Spatial and Temporal Aspects of the Density-Distance Relationship." Presented with Kent P. Schwirian and William A. Schwab at the North Central Sociological Association Meetings, Louisville, Kentucky, May 1976.
iv PUBLICATIONS
"Spatial and Temporal Aspects of the Density-Distance Relationship," with William A. Schwab and Kent P. Schwirian. Sociological Focus 10 (April 1977), pp. 117-132.
FIELDS OF STUDY
Human Ecology and Urban Sociology Professor Kent P. Schwirian Methodology and Statistics Professor Robert M. Jiobu Criminology Professor Simon Dinitz
v TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DEDICATION ...... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii
VITA ...... iv
LIST OF TABLES ...... viii
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
The Problem ...... 1 Contributions and Justification ...... 8 The Scope ...... 9 The Setting ...... 10
II. SOCIAL STATUS RESIDENTIAL DISTRIBUTION: A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 20
Introduction ...... 20 The Latin American Problem ...... 21 The North American Problem ...... 33 The Evolutionary Sequence ...... 48
III. METHODOLOGY AND HYPOTHESES ...... 62
Data and Variables ...... 62 Techniques of Analysis ...... 64 The Hypotheses ...... 71
IV. METROPOLITAN GROWTH AND CITY-FRINGE DIFFERENTIATION ...... 76
Introduction ...... 76 Metropolitan Growth ...... 79 City-Fringe Differentiation ...... 95
vi V. STATUS GROUP RESIDENTIAL DISSIMILARITY, SEGREGATION AND LOCATION ...... 130
Status Group Residential Dissimilarity and Segregation ...... 130 Status Group Residential Location and Characteristics of Areas ...... 190
VI. CONCLUSIONS ...... 210
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 218
VII LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Employed Males by Industrial Category: 1899 and 1970 ... 15 2. Population Size, City-Fringe Distribution, and Intercensus Growth Rates for Puerto Rican Metropolitan Areas: 1899-1970 ...... 80 3. Population Size and Growth of Municipio Components for the San Juan Metropolitan Area: 1899-1970 ...... 88 4. Population by Barrios and Intercensus Growth for Ponce: 1899-1970 91 5. Population by Barrios and Intercensus Growth Rates for Mayaguez: 1899-1970 ...... 95 6. Population by Barrios and Intercensus Growth Rates for Caguas: 1899-1970 ...... 98 7. Metropolitan Social Characteristics: Employment in Agriculture and Manufacturing for Males: 1940-1970 .. 101 8. White Collar Composition of City and Fringe Population for Puerto Rico's Metropolitan Areas: 1940-1970 107 9. Literacy Composition of City and Fringe Population for Puerto Rico's Metropolitan Areas: 1930-1970 ...... 110 10. Family Income Composition and Fringe Population for Puerto Rico's Metropolitan Areas: 1960 and 1970 ...... 112 11. Fertility for City and Fringe of Puerto Rico's Metropolitan Areas: 1930-1970 ...... 115 12. Median Age for City and Fringe for Puerto Rico's Metropolitan Areas: 1930-1970 ...... 118 13. Percent of Housing by Year Built for Puerto Rico's Metropolitan Areas: 1970 ...... 121 14. Percent of Owner-occupied Housing and Median Rent for Puerto Rico's Metropolitan Areas: 1970 ...... 122 15. Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Family Income Groups in the San Juan Metropolitan Area: 1960 and 1970...... 132 16. Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Occupational Groups of Males 14 years of Age and Over for the San Juan Metropolitan Area: 1960 and 1970 .... 133 17. Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Educational Groups of Persons 25 Years of Age and Over for the San Juan Metropolitan Area: 1960 and 1970. . „ 135
viii Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Family Income Groups for San Juan City: 1960 and 1970 ...... 137 Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Occupational Groups of Males 14 Years of Age and Over for San Juan City: 1960 and 1970 ...... 139 Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Educational Groups of Persons 25 Years of Age and Over for San Juan City: 1960 and 1970 ...... 141 Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Family Income Groups for the San Juan Fringe: 1960 and 1970 .. 142 Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Occupational Groups of Males 14 Years of Age and Over for the San Juan Fringe: 1960 and 1970 ...... 144 Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Educational Groups of Persons 25 Years of Age and Over for the San Juan Fringe: 1960 and 1970 ...... 146 Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Family Income Groups in the Ponce Metropolitan Area: 1960 and 1970 ...... 150 Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Occupational Groups of Males Age 14 Years and Over for the Ponce Metropolitan Area: 1960 and 1970 ...... 152 Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Educational Groups 25 Years of Age and Over for the Ponce Metropolitan Area: 1960 and 1970 ...... 154 Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Family Income Groups for Ponce City: 1960 and 1970 ...... 156 Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Occupational Groups of Males 14 Years of Age and Older for Ponce City: 1960 and 1970...... 158 Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Educational Groups of Persons 25 Years of Age and Older for Ponce City: 1960 and 1970 ...... 160 Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Family Income Groups for the Ponce Fringe: 1960 and 1970 ...... 162 Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Occupational Groups of Males 14 Years of Age and Over for the Ponce Fringe: 1960 and 1970 ...... 163 Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Educational Groups of Persons 25 Years of Age and Over for the Ponce Fringe: 1960 and 1970...... 165
ix 33. Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Family Income Groups for the Mayaguez Metro politan Area: 1960 and 1970 ...... 169 34. Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Occupational Groups of Males 14 Years of Age and Over for the Mayaguez Metropolitan Area: 1960 and 1970 ...... 171 35. Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Educational Groups of Persons 25 Years of Age and Over for the Mayaguez Metropolitan Area: 1960 and 1970.. 173 36. Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Family Income Groups for Mayaguez City: 1960 and 1970 ...... 175 37. Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Occupational Groups of Males 14 Years of Age and Over for Mayaguez City: 1960 and 1970...... 177 38. Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Educational Groups of Persons 25 Years of Age and Over for Mayaguez City: 1960 and 1970...... ^79 39. Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Family Income Groups for the Mayaguez Fringe: 1960 and 1970 ...... 181 40. Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Occupational Groups of Males 14 Years of Age and Over for the Mayaguez Fringe: 1960 and 1970 ...... ^83 41. Indexes of Dissimilarity and Segregation for Educational Groups of Persons 25 Years of Age and Over for the Mayaguez Fringe: 1960 and 1970 ...... ^85 42. Mean-mile Distance Rank Order Correlation with Status for Puerto Rican Metropolitan Areas: 1960 and 1970 ...... 191 43. Index of Centralization for San Juan: 1960 and 1970 .... 297 44. Index of Centralization for Ponce: 1960 and 1970 ...... 199 45. Index of Centralization for Mayaguez: 1960 and 1970 .... 201 46. Analysis of Covariance F-values for San Juan, Ponce and Mayaguez ...... 204
x CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Problem
The purpose of this study is to replicate and extend the analyses of residential segregation and location in metropolitan Puerto Rico in
1960 by Schwirian and Rico.^ The extension involves: (a) introducing
1970 data as well as data from 1899 to 1960, and (b) including a wider range of indicators of residential location. This study will attempt to evaluate a longitudinal model of status segregation and urban spatial geometry.
Past research has examined urban residential status segregation in different cultural settings and across societies which differ in their 2 level of societal development. Briefly, a summarization of these findings indicates that residential segregation is a ubiquitous societal phenomenon having distinct patterns. The degree of dissimilarity in residential distribution between pairs of status groups increases as the social status distance between the groups increases. Locationally, sta tus groups differ in their degree of centralization. Which status groups are centralized and which are decentralized is a function of the level of industrial development for that city. In cities with industrial economies, it is the low status groups that are highly centralized,
1 that is, located near the central business district, while the high status groups are decentralized and tend to locate at the periphery.
In non-industrial economies the reverse tends to be true. The high status groups tend to be centralized, while the low status groups tend to be decentralized.
The most highly centralized and most highly decentralized groups tend to be the most highly segregated groups. Thus, depending on the level of industrial development, either high or low status groups are highly centralized, while both the high and low status groups are the most segregated in the urban spatial geometry. There tends to be, therefore, a U-shaped curve describing the relationship between cen- 3 tralization and segregation..
Two contrasting models exist which describe the patterns of differ ential residential distribution in the Western Hemisphere. The Latin
American model, emerging from the studies by Hansen, Hayner, Hawthorn and Hawthorn, Caplow, Dotson and Dotson, Stanislawski, Schwirian and
Rico, and Schwirian and Smith,^ describes the urban residential distri bution as an inverse gradient: high status groups are centralized while low status groups are decentralized--located in the periphery of the city.
The cities examined by these studies have in common a non-industrial economic base and undeveloped transportation and communication systems.
For the most part, their original settlement purpose was connected with colonial administration and military defense strategies: they were locations between the dominant country and raw materials and served as fortifications to protect colonial holdings. Under Spanish colonial rule, cities were built following the speci
fications of the Laws of the Indies.^ This plan provisioned that a
central square, or plaza mayor, be located at the center of the city, with two major avenues of transportation meeting at the midpoints of its
sides. The plaza mayor served as the social, economic and geographic
center of the city and was the focal point for land use allocation.
Located around the square were the cathedral, government administration buildings, the market place, and the residences and businesses of the high status groups. A rectangular street plan surrounded the central square and extended to the city fringe, designed to accommodate city growth without disrupting the symmetry of the overall plan, and allowing for the maintenance of land allocation use. The city gridiron was fur ther divided into barrios, or semi-autonomous districts, each of which had its own smaller central square.
The location of the groups within this planning framework was determined partly by accessibility to the central square and partly by traditional status relationships. The general residential location pattern was for high status groups to be highly centralized and low status groups to be highly decentralized, with medium status groups located in areas between the two. The barrios within this overall pattern were functionally separate from the city center and tended to be occupationally specialized.^ There was little intra-urban mobility, promoted by the functional independence of the barrios and by the place of work and the place of residence being the same. This, consequently, fostered strong community cohesion and identification, characteristics which also identify the Latin American model. 4
The absence of an industrial base and rudimentary transportation and communication systems in tandem with stable social characteristics, a slow rate of growth and the absence of a competitive land market result in the maintenance of an inverse gradient pattern of status group spatial distribution. There are no forces which lead to an in crease in diversity or specialization of the population present in these relatively isolated settings.
The competing model has been called the North American model. It depicts the residential segregation distribution pattern as a direct gradient with distance from the center of the city: the reverse of the
n pattern described by the Latin American model. Cities exhibiting this pattern share an industrial economic base and efficient, rapid transpor tation and communication systems. However, instead of a residential distribution pattern shaped by a specific urban plan and traditional status relationships, the North American pattern, as described by Park
O and Burgess, is shaped by competition for space manifest through the operation of the urban land market. The economic, cultural and politi cal institutions concentrate at the city center, where the land values are the highest. Maximum accessibility in terms of the spacetime ratio is fixed at the city center, and activities that benefit most from this location are able to afford the cost, and thus dominate the area. As growth occurs, the city center expands outward, invading and finally dominating the surrounding area. Surrounding the central business dis trict is an area of transition, where mixed industrial and residential land use predominate; industrial succession is not yet complete. Adja cent to the zone of transition is a zone of multiple-family dwelling units, residences for blue-collar workers and convenient to the indus tries that supply employment. With increasing distance from this zone, multiple family dwelling units are replaced by single family dwelling units to create a zone in which white-collar groups are dominant.
Beyond this zone is the zone of commuters, high status groups that can afford to locate at the periphery of the city. Each group within this configuration is located so as to minimize the space-time cost relative to their residential desires as limited by the invasion-succession- dominance framework of the urban land market. Place of work and place of residence are not synonymous; intra-urban mobility is high, and areas within the city are not functionally independent.
The operation of the urban land market in this context yields a direct status gradient. Low status groups are centralized, the location that competition for land use has allotted them, while high status groups are decentralized, located in the periphery. The processes of invasion and succession, operating through the urban land market, function to distribute social groups into locational patterns. As industrial-based economy, population growth and diversity, and rapid, efficient transpor tation and communication systems interact dynamically to produce this residential segregation distribution characteristic of North American cities.
While the models pertain to two distinctly different cultural settings, Schnore, and Schwirian and Rico have questioned whether these models should be viewed as static, comparative entities, or as develop mental stages in a more general evolutionary model linked to societal modernization.^ An occurrence of group centralization reversal, from an
inverse to a direct gradient, is predicted to follow an increasing degree of societal modernization.
The manifestation of advanced technologies, the creation and availa bility of investment capital and other related phenomena in a non-industrial
society lead to new and increased differentiation of the social character
istics found in the society, eventually resulting in a structure synonymous with that of an industrial society. It has been suggested that over time,
given the conditions inherent in the modernization process, the Latin
American pattern changes to a North American pattern of residential segre gation and location.
Modernization, or a societal increase in scale, involves an increasing integration of labor and technology within an organizational network to facilitate the production and distribution of goods and services. Together, these factors result in an increase in the amount of productivity per participant and eventually lead to an industrially-based s o c i e t y .
The impact of this process decreases the time-space ratio through
advanced transportation and communication networks, making a larger scale
organization possible and facilitating the coordination among the inter dependent parts. Within this framework of development, division of labor
and functional specialization occur, affecting the population and its organization. An interdependent national industrial economy becomes possible and an undeveloped society becomes a developed society.
However, some have argued that modernization does not occur at a uniform rate within a society. The modernization process is at first focused in the largest, or primate, city of the society.1'1' As the primate 7 city in a society with a colonial history tends to have been the locus of administrative and export activities, it offers a potential labor force with a wider diversity of necessary skills, it contains the commercial and financial institutions of the society, and it has a transportation and communication system that is better developed than the rest of the society. All of these factors facilitate the initiation of economic development in the primate city.
Industrial development begins by drawing on the available labor force to participate in an industrial operation. Improvement of the existing transportation and communication systems facilitate intra-urban mobility necessary to produce and distribute goods and services. The building of industries is capital formation: capital profit tends to be reinvested to increase the industrial base. Once this process is under way, a larger labor force is required, and the demand is typically supplied by rural to urban migration. Population growth and increasing functional specialization and division of labor is reflected in the developing heterogeneity of the population. Differentiation of social characteristics encompasses types of occupation, educational achievement, and income level. The introduction of these factors creates differing life styles. This development, interacting with the concentration of industry and commerce in a central location and the disruption of social traditions, culminates in competition for space: the urban land market begins to operate. Over time, the residential distribution pattern of the primate city parallels that of the North American model. High status groups gradually migrate to the periphery, abandoning the centralized location that is now less desirable, as it is located near the industrial 8 concentration. Low status groups centralize in this location, having lost the competition for space, and lacking the resources to locate in more desirable areas. ^ Following initial resistance, the processes of invasion and succession operate to distribute the population.
The internal pattern change diffuses from the primate city to the secondary urban centers, its rate affected by the transportation tech nology and related functional interdependence. The pattern change is also a function of city size.13 Larger secondary urban centers which are linked to the primate city by efficient transportation and communi cation networks will undergo a pattern change more rapidly than smaller cities, or cities that are not included by the transportation and communi cation networks. The functional interdependence of the secondary city with the primate city and the society facilitates the development of an industrial base and a diversified population necessary for the pattern change to occur. Smaller, more isolated and less functionally inter dependent cities will be the last to undergo change in a modernizing society. Change is not a uniform process within a society.
In this study, a longitudinal analysis of residential segregation and location patterns in a developing society, Puerto Rico, is undertaken.
The evolutionary model is tested using small area data for three cities:
San Juan, Ponce and Mayaguez. San Juan is the primate city, Ponce and
Mayaguez are the secondary urban centers.
Contributions and Justification
A research enterprise should seek to further knowledge and contri- . bute to an understanding of its field as laudable aspirations. In line with these goals, this study seeks a three-fold contribution. First, a replication of the previous study by Schwirian and Rico will serve to validate that study.^ Secondly, an examination of an evolutionary model of residential segregation and location will provide a more specific understanding of the longitudinal relationship between internal urban
structure and the process of modernization. Past studies of this particu
lar phenomenon have been primarily by-product observationsWhile
Schnore suggested the evolutionary sequence, he did not attempt to
empirically verify it.^ This study, by replication and extension, is
designed to test the evolutionary sequence.
Thirdly, because Puerto Rico has data comparable with those of the
United States, cross-cultural comparisons of results are facilitated
for future studies. Moreover, Puerto Rico is the only modernizing
society with extensive longitudinal data available.
The Scope
The scope of this study is limited to a longitudinal analysis of
residential status segregation and location in a rapidly developing
society. The central argument addressed by this opus is the spatial
geometry of residential segregation and location in the internal city
is a function of the level of modernization for that city. Status gra
dient changes and the degree of dissimilarity of pairs of groups and
segregation of groups are observed over time for three different cities
utilizing census tracts. The use of additional measures enables a longer
observational time span and the addition of a fourth city to explore this
phenomenon. 10
Measures of education and occupation and income are employed as indicators of status.
In preparation for any analysis, a theoretical framework must be presented to elucidate the nature of the postulated relationships. A review of the pertinent literature, including the theoretical framework and previous studies is presented in Chapter II.
An explanation of the methodology is presented in Chapter III.
Within this chapter, the definition of the variables, the construction of the various indices and the hypothesis are discussed.
Chapters IV and V are the presentation of the findings, including the pertinent discussion. The final chapter, Chapter VI, encompasses the conclusions of the study and its implications.
The Setting
Puerto Rico was selected as the setting for this study not only for the purposes of replication, but also because it is a rapidly modernising society and is the only modernizing society which has adequate longitu dinal data to enable a study of this scope. Thus, it is appropriate for the setting.
Puerto Rico was ceded to the United States in 1898 as a result of the Spanish American War and the treaty of Paris. Today it has Common wealth status: its people are citizens of the United States, but they have neither representation in Congress, nor are they subject to federal taxation.^ While Puerto Rico is closely tied to the United States, it 18 has maintained its own viable culture within a Latin American context.
Its people have resisted adoption of North American culture, even though the economic and political ties are close. 11
The United States' original interest in Puerto Rico focused on its strategic location in the Caribbean. The location was regarded as an important military advantage: Puerto Rico is the gateway to the
Caribbean and serves as an outpost enroute to the Panama Canal. Also,
Puerto Rico provided a strategic location from which to claim offshore fishing rights in the South Atlantic Ocean.^
The historical period surrounding the annexation of Puerto Rico had an impact for its future economic development. The turn of this century was accompanied by a period of imperalism; nations searching for unoccupied areas which could supply raw materials and serve as markets for finished products. Puerto Rico was viewed as such a market for American goods, as well as a potential supplier of sugar. ^ The capital investments and technology involved in these colonial enterprises aided in the moderniza tion of Puerto Rico. Politically, such investments have been viewed as a mixed blessing.
In 1899, the United States Department of War undertook the first
American census of the Puerto Rican population. At that time, 85.4 per cent of the population resided in rural areas, and 73.3 percent of the labor force was engaged in agricultural and related work.^l The Puerto
Rican economy was agricultural, based mainly on three labor-intensive, cash-export crops: coffee, sugar and tobacco.^
American tariff laws reduced the coffee economy, as most of the coffee produced by Puerto Rico was exported to European nations, but the tariff protection of sugar, tobacco and fruit exportation to American markets created growth in the production of these crops. ^ By 1930, sixty percent of the sugar production was controlled by four absentee 12
American corporations. Also, by 1930, absentee American corporations
had invested $120,000,000 in Puerto Rico.24 The result of American
investments and the introduction of agricultural capital-intensive
technology had an impact on Puerto Rican society similar to other socie
ties which experienced colonial domination.
To be profitable to investors, the sugar agriculture required large
land holdings. As the size of the holdings increased, many small farmers were dislocated: these people tended to migrate toward processing cen
ters and urban areas. The urban growth rate began to increase.
Investment interests also found Puerto Rico lucrative because of
the low wages which could be paid and still maintain a steady supply of
labor. The standard of living in Puerto Rico was, and is, low. Housing,
sanitation and plumbing were generally inadequate. Diarrhea, enteritis
and malaria were major contributors to the death rate. The fertility rate was high, life expectancy was not. It was a period of American
colonial political and economic domination.
The depression of the 1930's created a contracting economy while the population continued to grow, creating a high unemployment rate among the Puerto Rican people and resulting in discontent regarding their
status. The discontent led to the rise of the Popular Democratic Party
(PPD) with its slogan, "Bread, Land, Liberty," and the eventual election 25 of Luis Munoz Marin in 1940.
This event marked a turning point in Puerto Rican economic develop ment and reduced Puerto Rican economic colonialism. Under Luis Munoz
Marin, the industrialization of Puerto Rico was planned. Because of the high population density of Puerto Rico it did not appear that a developed 13 agricultural economy could support and employ the population, hence industrialization was seen as the key to solving the high unemployment problem and the instrument by which to raise the standard of living.
To this end, three organizations were established in 1942 to implement industrial development of the island. The Puerto Rican Planning Board functioned to study and plan, in broad terms, the social economic needs of Puerto Rico. The Government Development Bank of Puerto Rico was involved with part of the industrialization funding for the program.
But it was the Puerto Rican Industrial Development Company (PRIDCO) which was responsible for studying the resources available and experi menting toward the production, sale and export of new products. It was out of this organization that "Operation Bootstrap" originated, aimed to make Puerto Rico a self-sufficient economy. In 1949, PRIDCO began to encourage the investment of outside capital into Puerto Rican industry.
In 1952, when Puerto Rico gained Commonwealth status, PRIDCO was reorgan ized under the Economic Development Administration (EDA). With Commonwealth status, Puerto Rico and PRIDCO utilized the tax-exempt status to encourage investments, emphasizing the profits that were available in Puerto Rico which were not in the United States because of the tax exemption. °
Companies such as Sun Oil Company, Texaco, Shell, Commonwealth Oil
Refining Company (CORCO), J. C. Penney, Grand Union, and Sears Company were among the investors in Puerto Rican industry. Since the introduction of tax exempt status, the number of industries in Puerto Rico has more than tripled. Investors most sought after are large employers: heavy industry was, and is, heavily pursued. During the 1960's, Puerto Rico 27 had one of the highest investment rates in the world. 14
However, industrialization has presented problems: Its development is unevenly located on the island, being heaviest in San Juan, Ponce and
Mayaguez. Because Puerto Rico has a mountainous interior and the trans portation networks are inefficient to these regions, industrialization has not occurred evenly. ^
Concurrent with the industrialization plan, a .land reform plan was instituted, limiting corporation holdings to five hundred acres and attempting to redistribute the land to Puerto Rican fanners.29 Programs were also aimed at improving public health and education levels. In 1970, the mortality rate was 6.1 per thousand and the literacy rate for persons ten years and older had increased to 89.2 percent, levels comparable to those of modernized countries.
By 1970, only 41.9 percent of the population resided in rural areas indicating the increase in urbanization for Puerto Rico.^T The urbaniza tion and industrialization have led to a diversification of the Puerto
Rican labor force. Table 1 presents the industrial employment figures for 1899 and 1970 which reflect the change occurring in Puerto Rican society. Agricultural employment has declined from being the largest employer to the second smallest employer, while employment in manufac turing, trade and transportation and professional services has increased
?2 dramatically.
These events indicate the modemization process to be occurring in
Puerto Rico, making it an appropriate setting for a test of the evolu tionary model of residential segregation and location. The cities in volved are of different sizes and of different levels of development.
Although each city is located on the Puerto Rican coast, with the exception 15
TABLE 1
EMPLOYED MALES BY INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY: 1899 and 1970
Percent Employed Industry 1899 1970
Agriculture, Fishing and Mining 73.3 11.8
Domestic Service 10.2 3.6
Manufacturing 7.5 33.6
Trade and Transportation 8.3 20.6
Professional Service .7 30.4
SOURCES: Data for 1899 is taken from the Census of Porto Rico: 1899 conducted by the United States Department of War (Washington: The United States Government Pringing Office). Data for 1970 is from the U. S. Bureau of the Census, General Social and Economic Characteristics of the Population (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office) 1972. The 1970 categories were constructed using cagegories present in the 1899 census. 16 of Caguas, the transportation network linking them to the rest of the island shows differential development. San Juan, the primate city has the most developed transportation network, with Ponce following, and
Mayaguez showing fewer and less developed transportation links.^3 FOOTNOTES
^Kent P. Schwirian and Jesus Rico-Velasco, "The Residential Distri bution of Status Groups in Puerto Rico's Metropolitan Areas," Demography, 8 (1971) , pp. 81-90.
2Asael T. Hansen, "The Ecology of a Latin American City," E. B. Reuter, ed., Race and Culture Contacts (New York: McGraw Hill, 1934), Chapter VIII; Norman S. Hayner, "Mexico City: Its Growth and Configura tion," American Journal of Sociology, 50 (1945), pp. 295-304; Harry B. and Audrey E. Hawthorn, "The Shape of a City: Some Observations on Sucre, Bolivia," Sociology and Social Research, 33 (1948), pp. 87-91; Theodore Caplow, "The Social Ecology of Gautemala City," George A. Theodorson, ed. Studies in Human Ecology (New York: Harper and Row, 1961), pp. 331-348; Dan Stanislawski, "The Anatomy of Eleven Towns in Michoacan," George A. Theodorson, ed. Studies in Human Ecology (new York: Harper and Row, 1961), pp. 348-355; A. H. Latif, "Residential Segregation and Location of Status and Religious Groups in Alexandria, Egypt," Kent P. Schwirian, ed. Comparative Urban Structure: Studies in the Ecology of Cities (Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company, 1974), pp. 423-432; Floyd and Lillian 0. Dotson, "Urban Cen tralization and Decentralization in Mexico," Rural Sociology, 21 (1956), pp. 41-49; Surinder K. Mehta, "Patterns of Residence in Poona (India), by Income, Education and Occupation (1937-1965)," American Journal of Sociology, 73 (1968), pp. 496-508; Surinder K. Mehta, "Patterns of Residence in Poona, India, by Caste and Religion: 1822-1965," Demography, 6 (1969), pp. 473-491; 0. D. and Beverly Duncan, "Residential Distribu tion and Occupational Stratification," American Journal of Sociology, 60 (1955), pp. 493-503; Kent P. Schwirian and Ruth K. Smith, "Primacy, Modernization and Urban Structure: The Ecology of Puerto Rican Cities," Kent P. Schwirian, ed. Comparative Urban Structure: Studies in the Ecology of Cities (Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company, 1974), pp. 324-338; Peter Collison, "Occupation, Education, and Housing in an English City," American Journal of Sociology, 65 (1960), pp. 588- 597; Peter Collison and John Mogey, "Residence and Social Class in Oxford," American Journal of Sociology, 64 (1960), pp. 599-604; Eugene Uyecki, "Residential Distribution and Stratification, 1950-1960," American Journal of Sociology, 69 (1964), pp. 491-498; Leo F. Schnore, "On the Spatial Structure of Cities in the Two Americas," Phillip M. Hauser and Leo F. Schnore, eds. The Study of Urbanization (Hew York: John Wiley, 1965); Kent P. Schwirian and Jesus Rico-Velasco, op. cit.
^Surinder K. Mehta, 1969, op. cit.
^Asael T. Hansen; Norman S. Hayner; Harry B. and Audrey Hawthorn; Theodore Caplow; Floyd and Lillian Dotson; Dan Stanislawski; Kent P. Schwirian and Ruth K. Smith; Kent P. Schwirian and Jesus Rico-Velasco, o p . cit.
17 18
^Theodore Caplow, Sheldon Stryker, and Samuel E. Wallace, The Urban Ambience (New York: Bedminister Press, 1964], pp. 13-15 and pp. 27-28; George A. Theodorson, Studies in Human Ecology, op. cit., pp. 325-332.
^Theodore Caplow, op. cit., p. 352.
*7 Peter Collison; Peter Collison and John Mogey; Eugene Uyecki; 0. D. and Beverly Duncan, op. cit. Also, Kent P. Schwirian and Marc D. Matre, "The Ecological Structure of Canadian Cities," Kent P. Schwirian, ed. Comparative Urban Structure: Studies in the Ecology of Cities (Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company, 1974), pp. 309-323.
^Ernest W. Burgess, "The Growth of the City," Robert Park, Ernest W. Burgess, and Roderick D. McKenzie, The City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1925).
^Leo F. Schnore; Kent P. Schwirian and Jesus Rico-Velasco, op. cit.
l^Scott Greer, The Emerging City (New York: The Free Press, 1962), pp. 29-66.
11Bert F. Hoselitz, "The Role of Cities in the Economic Growth of Underdeveloped Countries," and Arnold S. Linsky, "Some Generalizations Concerning Primate Cities," both in Gerald Breese, ed. The City in Newly Developing Countries (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1969), pp. 232-245, and pp. 288-294.
^Kent P. Schwirian and Ruth K. Smith, op. cit., p. 327.
13Ibid., p. 325.
14 Kent P. Schwirian and Jesus Rico-Velasco, op. cit.
^Asael T. Hansen; Norman S. Hayner; Theodore Caplow; Floyd and Lillian Dotson, op. cit.
^Leo F. Schnore, op. cit.
17 Earl P. Hansen, Puerto Rico: Ally for Progress (Princeton, New Jersey: D. VanNostrand, 1962), pp. 27-29.
18 Manuel Maldonado-Denis, Puerto Rico: A Socio-Historic Interpreta tion (New York: Random House, 1972), pp. 229-230. Also Earl P. Hansen, op. cit., pp. 27-29.
■^Adalberto Lopez and James Petras, eds., Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans (New York: John Wiley, 1974), p. 83. 1 9
20Ibid., p. 83.
2-*-United States Department of War, Report on the Census of Porto Rico, 1899 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1900), p. 43; United States Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population: 1970. General Social and Economic Characteristics PC(1)-C 53 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1972), p. 9.
22Report of the Census of Porto Rico, 1899, op. cit., p. 95.
^Adalberto Lopez and James S. Petras, op. cit., p. 103; Report of the Census of Porto Rico, 1899, op. cit., p. 152.
^Manuel Maldonado-Denis, op. cit., pp. 73-74.
25 Earl P. Hansen, op. cit., p. 120.
2^Rafael Pico, The Geography of Puerto Rico (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1974), pp. 297-303. 27 Ibid., p. 303. Also, Earl P. Hansen, op. cit., pp. 101-104; Manuel Maldonado-Denis, op. cit., pp. 165-166.
2®Rafael Pico, op. cit., p. 303.
2^Earl P. Hansen, op. cit., p. 16. Agricultural Reform measures were also instituted with the Land Reform Act of 1944 which limited corporation land holdings to five hundred acres and attempted to redistribute land to Puerto Rican farmers.
•^Rafael Pico, op. cit., p. 252.
■^United States Bureau of the Census, 1970, op. cit., p. 194.
A specific presentation of occupation, education and income distributions for urban and rural areas are presented in Chapter IV.
“^Rafael Pico, op. cit., p. 326. CHAPTER II
SOCIAL STATUS RESIDENTIAL DISTRIBUTION:
A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Introduction
Previous studies of urban residential segregation of social status groups have described two different patterns of group centralization in the Western Hemisphere: (1) high status groups tend to be centralized while low status groups tend to be decentralized in Latin American cities, (2) low status groups tend to be centralized while high status groups tend to be dispersed in the periphery in North American cities.
The notion that these two contrasting models describing residential distribution of social status characteristics reflect cultural differ ences alone has been questioned by Schnore, Sjoberg, Greer, Mehta, and
Schwirian and Rico.-1- It has been suggested that the pattern describing the social status spatial distribution of Latin American cities is indicative of a more general model for preindustrial cities while the pattern describing North American cities is representative of a more general model describing social status distribution in industrialized cities. Schnore, moreover, suggests that these two general models are more adequately subsumed under an evolutionary sequence model of urban spatial patterning of social status characteristics. Accordingly,
20 21 modernization of a preindustrial city to an industrial city is accom panied by a change in the residential distribution of social status groups so that the high status groups tend to become decentralized in residential location and the low status groups become centralized.
Thus, which group is centralized is a function of the level of develop ment in the society and the city. An industrial city will exhibit a positive relationship between social status and distance from the city center while a non-industrial city will display an inverse relationship.
This chapter presents a review of the literature and pertinent theory involved in the above discussion and culminates in the presenta tion of the Schwirian and Rico study of social status residential distribution in metropolitan Puerto Rico as a beginning step in exploring 3 an evolutionary sequence of social status urban geometry.
The Latin American Pattern
Hansen was the first to note the spatial and social ecology of the
Latin American city as it reflected the pattern laid out by the Laws of the Indies. Accordingly a city was developed with a rectangular street plan with a centrally located plaza and a number of surrounding barrios. The central plaza served as the location of political, economic, and religious edifaces and as the focal point for connected activities and land use allocation. Immediately adjacent to the plaza were the residences of members of the high social status groups who tended to be of Spanish origin. The surrounding barrios, located at a distance from the center plaza and allowing for the expansion of the plaza area, served as the residential area for members of lower social 22 status groups who tended to be of mixed Spanish and Indian descent.4
High and low status groups tended to differ in their residential loca tion, with the high status group centralized in the plaza area and the lower status groups decentralized in the peripheral areas of the city. It was also Hansen who first discussed an apparent change in the spatial geometry of the Latin American city and indicates indus trial and concommittant developments as possible factors in the spatial configuration change toward a North American pattern.^
Hansen's study was a case study of Merida, capital of the Mexican state of Yucatan, undertaken for the original purpose of examining race and culture contacts: the recognition of ecological patterning was peripheral to the major purpose, resulting in a largely descriptive and historical treatment of social status residential distribution patterns. While Hansen does not provide the operationalization of social status, he does indicate that a high percentage of people with professional occupations reside near the central plaza while the peripheral areas are characterized as low status residential areas.6
Hansen infers that this pattern reflects the pattern provided by the
Laws of the Indies.
However, Hansen indicates that the pattern was not uniform throughout the city. The northern section of the city contained some members of the higher status group in the periphery. This deviation resulted from a combination of factors: the advent of industrial development in the form of sisal (rope fiber) production factories which provided an increased source of local capital, and the effects of the Mexican Revolution which led to the development of a middle 23 class and a competitive status system.^ The change in traditional status relationships led to physical mobility, and was accompanied by the installation of utilities, telephones, electricity and paved roads which facilitated physical movement. The installation of utili ties, telephones and paving began in the plaza area and extended outward from there. Hansen indicates that the northern section had paved roads extending the greater distance from the plaza and that it was here that the new middle class located.® Merida also experienced a population growth of 70 percent in thirty-five years, and in 1930, it contained
22 percent of the population of the state of Yucatan.^ The increased population also facilitated physical movement within the city. The central plaza area became more differentiated in land use patterns through an increase in commercial activities, but Hansen regards this as secondary in the pattern change.
Although Hansen's study is historical and descriptive and not systematic in its use of data, it indicates that high status groups tend to be centralized and low status groups tend to be decentralized.
The assumption implicit in this statement of patterning is that status groups are also dissimilar from each other in their residential loca tion, and that high and low status groups are segregated from other groups in their residential location. Since the study was descriptive, the degree to which centralization, dissimilarity and segregation of social status groups exists cannot be known.
Hayner's examination of the social status ecological configuration of Mexico City supports Hansen's general description of residential distribution. Using historical data, land values, and interviewing, 24
Hayner found that the area near the central square was occupied pre dominantly by high status groups, while the periphery of the city was occupied by low status groups. This ecological pattern had been con stant for four hundred years.1(^
While no specific status categories were constructed, land values and type of residence were examined in determining the ecological pattern of residential social status group distribution.11 Land values tended to decrease with increasing distance from the central plaza, which is used as the city-center. An exception is the western section 12 of Mexico City, where land values tended to increase with distance.
Hayner indicates that the probable reason for this pattern deviation was the population growth, industrial development and location, and the introduction of technological amenities which developed in that area of the city. Specifically, the central plaza had taken on a land usage pattern reflecting a more commercial use and it had expanded westward: some old residences in this area had been converted into multiple family dwellings, and transportation and utility improvements began in the city center and radiated outward, more rapidly in the western section than the others.^ A swampy area on the eastern side of the city, and the location of industry in the northern section made
these areas undesirable residentially: the western section became
a desirable residential area.1^ Another development also facilitated the decentralization of high status groups: the introduction and
construction of the free-standing, North American style house.1^
According to Hayner, some centralization of lot; status groups had
taken place, but not to the extent of the decentralization movement of 25 the high status groups. The slum areas were located in the peripheral areas where they had been located for four hundred years.^ while a change in the spatial distribution of social status characteristics is described, Hayner did not employ analytical indices, hence it is not possible to evaluate the change, or even the existent configuration.
The general findings indicate that Mexico City exhibited an inverse relationship between distance and social status, with an exception in one section. It cannot be determined from Hayner's study what factors were responsible for creating this change, as these factors were not systematically explored either.
Hayner also examined status group spatial distribution in Oaxaca,
Mexico, a city smaller than Mexico City, with a population of about
30,000.*7 Social status in this study was determined by owners of telephones and recipients of free school meals. It was assumed that these attributes reflected status group membership. By plotting these cases on a map, a spatial distribution of social status was presented which reflected a Latin American configuration: high status groups were centralized, while low status groups were decentralized and the groups could be assumed segregated from each other.
Hayner also notes that little land specialization was present in
Oaxaca and cites the lack of transportation technology and an economic base in the handicraft stage as probable reasons for this: there had been no change, therefore the spatial configuration had remained the same.1319
In their study of Sucre, Bolivia, the Hawthorns cite six factors which operated to shape the general structure of the city: the Laws 26 of the Indies; the symbolic status value of residing in the central plaza; the impoverishment of the wealthy and consequent change in social mobility; the introduction of free-standing housing located at a distance from the central plaza; the change in the residential character of the central plaza to a more commercial character; and the local topography which made location on the hillsides desirable because of drainage. The resulting spatial distribution of social status groups resembled a diamond-shape: high status groups were distributed near the central plaza and along the major transportation routes, while
? f ) the low status groups were located at the edges of Sucre. These observations of ecological patterning and possible independent variables grew out of a study of social stratification, hence the treatment of spatial patterning is not systematic and only a general conclusion may be made. Also, it is not known what criteria comprise the definition of social class, although upper, middle and lower class are the cate gories used to discuss the spatial configuration, making comparison with other studies impossible. It appears, generally, that Sucre exhibited a Latin American pattern, with centralization of the high status group.Brief mention is made of the nature of the economic base, transportation, communication and utility development, which the Hawthorns include, with the changing social status system, as factors in determining the spatial configuration and changes within it.
La Paz, Bolivia, according to Leonard, exhibited a Latin American pattern of status group distribution. Social status is operationalized utilizing racial group membership: those of Indian group membership were defined as low status; those of mixed group membership were defined 27 as middle class, and those of Spanish group membership were defined as 22 high status. The data was from the La Paz census. Leonard found
the high status group to be centralized, and the low status group to
be decentralized in residential location. Not only was the status
group centralization pattern characteristic of the Latin American model
in general, but Leonard implies that the status groups are residentially
dissimilar to each other. This implication is supported by the value
gradient of residential property: it decreased with distance from the
central plaza. Residence types were also found to vary with distance
from the central plaza, thus the characteristics of areas also differed,
in a manner similar to the land value gradients. ^
Leonard indicates that some decentralization of upper status mem
bers had occurred up and down the valley in which La Paz is located,
but he does not describe it in detail, attributing it to the recent
A A availability of automobiles and public transportation facilities.
He does not discuss the population growth which his data indicate
occurred, nor does he include any mention of industrialization. The
changes that had occurred were not systematically studied.
In his study of Guatemala City, Caplow finds the residential
distribution of social status characteristics to be a Latin American pattern. Using city maps, directories and census data, Caplow deter
mined that high status groups were centralized and low status groups were decentralized, moreover, this distribution had been stable over
time. Probable reasons cited for this stability include: weakly
concentrated commercial activities, the lack of rapid population growth
combined with a city plan that expanded faster than did the population, 28 interior patio-oriented housing, low social mobility, the lack of a competitive land market, the lack of a public transportation system, and the absence of a zone of transition possibly because of the not infrequent occurrence of earthquakes, and, finally, the lack of avail able credit. ^ Caplow indicates that a section to the south of the city did contain high status groups residing in free-standing suburbia- type housing, but the residents tended to be of foreign ethnicity membership.^ The implication Caplow makes for the absence of a change in the social status spatial distribution pattern is that the factors assumed necessary in the Burgess model had not begun to operate in
Guatemala City.
The previous studies, with the exception of Hayner's examination of Oaxaca, have examined primate or capital cities, cities which were linked to the larger world through economic or administrative activities.
Stanislawski studied eleven small towns in the Mexican province of
Michoacan: his major purpose was examining the impact of geographical location on city characteristics. His method for the study was mapping activities of stores, crafts, administrative offices, services and the quality of housing.^7 He found an inverse gradient of housing quality and distance for each of the towns following the Latin American pattern.
Place of work and residence were not separate, and Stanislawski found that the barrios tended to be occupationally specialized with little specialization of land use. There was a lack of competitive land markets. ^ Status groups in these towns were apparently dissimilar in place of residence and segregated to some degree from other groups. 29
The towns examined were relatively isolated and had experienced little population growth. Geographic location had no apparent effect on town spatial structure.
Dotson and Dotson examined Guadalajara, Mexico, and found a mixed areal distribution of social status characteristics that reflected neither the Latin American pattern or the North American pattern.
Middle working and lower status groups, in that order, exhibited a con centric residential settlement pattern with distance from the central plaza, while the upper status groups were distributed sectorally in a direction westward from the plaza. Status was determined by the most frequent housing type existant on each block of the city. Five housing types were delineated depending on the size of the residence, the number of entrances and whether or not the residence was a free-standing unit.
Also used were land values, but their utility was deemed unreliable because of the land market speculation which was occurring with the rapid population growth of Guadalajara at the time.^O A third method was also constructed to determine social status spatial distribution: assuming that only upper status groups could afford the amenities of a telephone, a 25 percent sample of the telephone directory was taken and plotted on a city map, indicating a concentration of upper status groups in the central plaza and the western sector of the city.^ The
Dotson's conclude that the status distribution of Guadalajara has not reversed to a North American pattern.
To explain the distribution of status groups, the Dotson's indi cate the pattern of technological development: paved streets, sewers and running water developed from the center outward; only the upper 30 status groups had the resources to enable auto ownership, and thus could afford to settle at a distance from the central plaza. Their old residences in the plaza could be afforded only by the middle status group, hence the resultant pattern: lower status groups were prevented from centralizing by the higher tax rate of the city— the peripheral areas remained less expensive and affordable to them.^
Thus, while the city of Guadalajara did not have a spatial distribu tion of social status characteristics typical of either Latin American or North American configuration, apparent changes were taking place.
Because the study only considered one point in time, it cannot be determined if these were changes or a pattern exhibited by only
Guadalajara: the assumptions of the Burgess model indicate that this distribution of status may indicate a city in transition.
The difficulty presented by these studies is methodological and theoretical in nature. The absence of detailed census data presents a problem in obtaining systematic areal data, but beyond that, these studies are case studies of cities, not a representative sample: most of the studies, with the exception of Hayner*s study of Oaxaca and
Stanislawski*s study of eleven small towns, are case studies of primate cities. Because of primate city economic and administrative links with the larger social organization of a national and possibly international setting, these cities do not constitute a representative sample of cities. Moreover, many of the studies do not provide the population size of the city, nor the growth rate. If a growth rate is provided, it is constructed from estimated population size. In many of the 33 studies, the year of the population data is not available. It is 31 difficult to ascertain the size and growth rate of the city involved in a study and thus practically impossible to gauge the impact of this on the spatial distribution of status characteristics in the study.
Furthermore, many of these studies are by-products of other studies concerning the breakdown of traditional status relations and structures: only after this phenomenon was examined was the distribution of status groups examined. Because of this, there is under-utilization of existing data, such as directories and the like, and an unsystematic treatment of the available data. Thus, while the majority of the studies indi cate that a Latin American pattern of status characteristics distribu tion exists for the cities studied, the precise nature of this spatial distribution cannot be determined from the studies. In hand with this problem is the lack of precise operationalization of social status.
From the previous review of the literature it can be seen that a diver sity of attributes have been used to determine social status: profession, ethnicity, telephone ownership, receiving free school meals, historical maps, housing types, and land values. ^ None of the authors define social status in a comparable manner, making a comparison of specific results impossible. Moreover, some of the attributes used are assumed to represent social status characteristics, but are not examined to see if they do, indeed, reflect status group membership to any degree.
Ethnicity, telephone ownership, and receiving school meals are examples of this assumption: none of the attributes indicated were thoroughly explored. It is not known, then, to what extent these indicators reflect social status. 32
While the studies focus on social status spatial distribution as the dependent variable to be explained, there is a notable lack of systematic treatment of independent variables to explain the nature of the distribution. While the studies variously mention topography, social mobility, population growth, technological development of trans portation and communication systems, utilities' development, industrial development and location, housing construction, land use change, and a competitive land market as possible factors in shaping the urban ecology, little systematic attention is given to these as independent variables, thus it cannot be concluded as to what extent they had an impact on social status spatial patterns. These variables are utilized by the Burgess model to explain the distribution of social character istics in a spatial context, but these studies, though undertaken after the appearance of the Burgess model, demonstrate a lack of attention to the model. Instead of treating these variables as independent variables, the studies concentrate on them as distorting factors which created a disruption in an otherwise identifiable pattern of status distribution.^
Finally, the studies indicate a change in the social status system, or a lack of change, but nowhere is it indicated what the precise nature and degree of change within status designations is. This makes it impossible to compare results, or to objectively evaluate a change in the status distribution pattern. Nor are the relative sizes of the status groups indicated, so an evaluation of change cannot be accom plished by examining a change in categorical proportions.^6 What can be concluded from the studies of Latin American social status spatial distribution is that a general pattern of gTOup loca tion related to distance from the city center plaza emerged: high status groups tended to be centralized; low status groups decentralized.
Secondly, where there were deviations of this pattern mentioned, there tended to be a mention of a change in traditional status relationships, or the notation of disrupting factors, and tentative statements con cerning a possible shift of the urban spatial geometry toward a North
American pattern. Where no change was found, the lack of industry, the lack of population growth, and the stability of social status relation ships were mentioned as possible reasons for the absence of change, even though none of these factors was systematically examined over time.
The general conclusion concerning the status group centralization pattern also includes two tacit assumptions concerning the characteris tics of status groups: they are dissimilar in residential distribution from each other, and the high status groups and the low status groups reside in locations separate, or segregated, from each other.
While the two tacit assumptions do not differ in the North American model of social status spatial distribution, the conclusion concerning group centralization pattern does. The following section discusses the
North American, or Burgess model.
The North American Pattern
In contrast to the studies of Latin America ecological structure, studies of North American cities' social status spatial pattern follow 37 the theoretical framework provided by Burgess. Burgess hypothesized that a city was composed of five ideal zones: the central business district; the zone of transition; the zone of workingmen's homes; a residential zone of professional people's homes; and a commuters' zone composed of suburbia and satellite suburbs. The central business district is the convergence of transportation conduits and the focal point for economic, political and administrative activities of the city.
The zone of transition is an area immediately adjacent to the central business district that is being invaded by businesses and light manu facturing activities. Its residential population tends to be highly physically mobile. Surrounding the zone of transition is the zone of workingmen's homes, containing apartments and housing abandoned by the residents of the next zone, that of prefessional men, where single family dwelling units are the dominant type of residence. The outer most zone is that of the commuters who are economically integrated with the city in that they are engaged in productive, distributive or consumptive activities which occur in the city.^8 The pattern des cribed is a direct gradient of distance from the central business district and social status: low status groups are centralized, while high status groups are decentralized.
Burgess, however, intended that his hypothesis be regarded as a longitudinal one and he discusses the process of city expansion which gives the city its particular pattern of social characteristic distri butions. City expansion is composed of two processes: physical growth and a process of radial expansion from the central business district.
This latter process consists of invasion, succession and dominance of an area, and the processes of concentration and decentralization, which are complementary and antagonistic. In the expansion of the city "a process of distribution takes place that sifts and sorts and rela- 39 cates individuals and groups by residence and occupation.1' Over
time, with a growth in population, the city extends beyond its original
settlement boundaries through the processes of invasion, succession and
dominance. An invasion of an area may occur because of a change in the
forms and routes of transportation, the age and physical deterioration
or change in the fashion or use of buildings or residences, the building
of new structures which have either attractive or repellant significance
the introduction of new industry or a change in the organization of
existing industry, a change in the economic base which results in a
redistribution of income within the population and creates a change in
residence demands, and real estate speculation which creates a sudden
demand for special sites.^0 The initial development of the city follows
the established major transportation routes with the interstitial areas developing later: the central business district develops at the inter
section of the major transportation arteries.^ When an area is invaded
there is either a change in land use, or a change in the characteris
tics of the inhabitants. This development is reflected in a change in
the land values which serve as a measure of the supply and demand for
locations for specific activities. The land values act as a sorting
mechanism for land use of an area and its social characteristics:
those activities or groups who can afford the cost of an area gradually
become dominant in that area and a succession has taken place— the area
has different usage or characteristics than before.^ The zone of 36 transition is an example of an area undergoing this process: the city expands outward in this manner, in every-widening rings. The competion
for space creates an ecological pattern of usage and characteristics.
Fundamental to the spatial arrangement of the city is the social
organization of the population within it. According to Park, trans portation and communication technology is fundamental to this aspect of an ecological pattern: developments in transportation and communi
cation result in the decrease of the time-space ratio, enabling a physicially mobile population to exist and the organizations which
exert social control in a set of formal relationships that come to
supercede the primary relations of social control which existed in a
smaller c o m m u n i t y . ^3 A development which occurs simultaneously with the aforementioned is the diversification of the economic base in a
longitudinal and sequential manner. This results in the diversifi
cation and specialization of activities available to the population,
and necessitates the social control mechanisms. It also creates a diverse population with differential demands upon city space: the urban land market operates to sift and sort them into a spatial
arrangement that Park says reflects the social order. "Physical and
sentimental differences reinforce each other.According to Burgess,
segregation of groups in particular areas is a mechanism of both
functional integration and social control, allowing greater freedom
on the one hand, and less freedom on the other. This is a reflection of the complementary, but contradictory, processes of concentration
and decentralization. Particular activities become areally concentrated while the physical mobility of the population is increased to partake of
these activities; the processes together create an operative w h o l e . ^5 37
The city is viewed as a dynamic process, the interplay of technology, economy and social organization create the urban mosaic. Tfie primary features of the spatial pattern are the characteristics of areas reflecting their particular use, and the characteristics of groups who tend to be spatially separate, reflecting their social differences.
There are implicit assumptions involved in the Burgess model which reflect the conditions and activities existent in the North American city. These assumptions are: (1) the presence of a heterogeneous population; (2) a mixed commercial-industrial economic base which demands specialized land use; (3) private ownership of property; C4) economic competition; (5) rapid and efficient transportation and communication systems; (6) geometry of space reflecting a single center of commercial and industrial activity; (7) a land market where central areas are more highly valued because of their scarcity and their greater accessibility; and (8) a residential pattern that reflects socioeconomic status in that the upper status group has freedom of location and is able to usurp the desirable residential locations. ^ It is also noted that a growing popu lation is also assumed. The presence of these conditions and relationships is necessary for the Burgess model to operate: where they are present, the hypothesized distribution occurs.
Hoyt proposed a different model of status spatial distribution that describes social status as being sectorally distributed, instead of spatially distributed by distance. Hoyt hypothesized that areal develop ment followed transportation routes as a result of activities and groups locating to minimize their time and distance costs. Competition in the urban land market initially sorts the population, but the characteristics 38 of a sectoral area tend to maintain themselves over a long period of time. High status areas tend to develop along existent transportation routes and develop towards another existing nexus of buildings or trade areas, or toward open spaces and away from areas which present a natural barrier to development, or industrial locations, but they tend to develop toward those natural features which are evaluated as desirable. High rent areas tend to do the latter; residential areas tend to develop ■ away from these natural barriers. Moreover, over time, a sector may move back in on itself, renovating residences and maintaining its character. Hoyt indicates that a sharp distinction between sectors in terms of land values would not be unexpected.^7 Hoyt's hypothesis of social status spatial distribution shares assumptions with the Burgess hypothesis: Hoyt also assumes a heterogeneous population, population growth, an industrial-commercial economic base, private ownership of property, specialization in land use, efficient, cheap and rapid transportation, and the freedom of location for the upper status groups.
Both hypotheses focus on the urban land market as the process by which social groups are sorted into spatial locations.
The major difference in the two hypotheses is Hoyt's contention that status becomes distributed sectorally and remains so: Burgess' hypothesis suggests an initial sectoral development, but the process of city expansion ultimately results in a gradient distribution.
Using these two hypotheses and a quote by Park to justify their undertaking, Duncan and Duncan undertook the most systematic study of social status spatial distribution in Chicago. Park said: 39
It is because social relations are so frequently and inevitably correlated with spatial relations; because physical distances so frequently are, or seem to be, the indexes of social distance, that statistics have any significance whatever for sociology. And this is true, finally, because it is only as social and psychial facts can be reduced to, or correlated with, spatial facts that they can be measured at all.48
The Duncan's study linked ecology to social organization using a methodoJ which could be duplicated in future studies and hence enab.t - comparisons of findings. Using census data for occupational categories as a measure of social status and census tracts combined into segments by the intersection of sectors and zones, as well as census tracts alone as a unit of analysis, the Duncan's constructed four indices to examine the characteristics of groups and the character istics of areas.
Their index of dissimilarity reflects the social distance between pairs of groups by examining the difference between their areal distri butions. The findings indicated that the more dissimilar the distribution of one group is compared to the other, the greater the social distance between them: high status and low status groups are most dissimilar.^9
The index of segregation measures the difference in areal distri bution of one group compared to all other groups. The findings indicate that a U-shaped curve describes the spatial segregation of groups: high and low status groups are the most segregated groups, status groups between the two extremes differ in their degree of segregation, but are more similar to one another than to the high or low status groups.^®
The index of centralization orders the unit of analysis by distance from the city center of the city and presents the tendency of residences of a particular status category to be at a particular distance from the 40 center. The findings indicate a general support for the Burgess hypothesis, with the exception of one sector, where industrial loca tion was cited as a distorting factor.51
The index of low-rent concentration orders the unit of analysis by rent interval and indicates the tendency for the residence of a particu lar status group to be in areas of low-rent. The findings indicate an inverse relationship between status and areas of low r e n t . 52
Three inversions from the expected pattern were found in the index of dissimilarity: the occupational categories of managers and sales people were reversed in that the index value for the sales people indi cated this group to be more dissimilar in its areal distribution to the clerical worker, craftsmen and operative worker groups than was the managerial group. The clerical worker group had index values which were more similar to those of blue collar workers than white collar workers, and lastly, the index value for craftsmen and service workers was larger than that for clerical workers and service workers. The
Duncan’s explain these deviations by indicating that the occupational categories do not rank order identically on measures of income and education; salesworkers had more educational experience than managerial workers, and clerical workers had more educational experience than crafts men, but less income. This was an occurrence of status disequilibria and indicated a need to use more than one measure of status to obtain a complete indicator. Service workers, it was noted, are more apt to have their place of work identical with place of residence, and therefore are more similar in their areal distribution to white collar groups such as the clerical workers, than to other blue collar g r o u p s . 53 41
A correlation for the indexes- of dissimilarity and segregation for segments and census tracts was high and significant indicating that the units of analysis were equally heterogeneous or homogenous, depending on how their validity was argued. The Duncan'a also noted that the occupational categories were not perfectly homogenous, and that this heterogeneous makeup of categories and unit of analysis may lead to a slight blurring of the social status spatial distribution.^
The conclusions of the study are that the spatial distance between groups closely reflects the social distance between them; the most seg regated groups are those at the extremes of the status scale; centralization and concentration in low rent areas of status groups is inversely related to social class. Low status groups are located near the central business district in areas of low rent, while high status groups are located in the peripheral areas of the city.
Uyecki used the Duncan indexes on census occupational categories for the city of Cleveland for 1950 and 1960, using both tracts and seg ments as units of analysis. For 1950, occupational groups were found dissimilar from each other in their residential distribution, the segregation values for the groups formed a U-shaped curve, the high and low status groups being the most segregated, centralization and concen tration in low rent areas of status groups was inversely related to status.^ In general, these results supported the Duncan's findings for Chicago.
Since Burgess presented his hypothesis of urban spatial geometry as a process, Uyecki also analysed the 1960 data and compared those findings to the 1950 findings. He found a change in the degree of 42
dissimilarity and segregation. In 1960, laborers were more centralized
as were clerical workers which Uyecki explains as a function of the percent of nonwhites in clerical occupation: racial segregation ia also
involved. The laborers were also more concentrated in low rent areas
than they had been in 1950. The managerial group was more decentralized
than the professional group in 1960 than in 1950. Overall, Uyecki con
cludes that a longitudinal process is operating in the direction that
Burgess predicted.
Collison and Mogey examined residence and social class in Oxford,
England, utilizing occupational categories. Because of a flood plain topography, Oxford did not have a perfectly circular physical shape: development had followed transportation arteries, resulting in a star shaped physical configuration, not unlike Burgess' description of longitudinal development. The index of dissimilarity behaved in the predicted pattern: groups were dissimilar in their areal distribution, reflecting social distance. The index of segregation formed a U-shaped curve, but high status occupations were more segregated in their resi dential location than were low status occupations. The authors explain this as the impact of public housing on the location of low status 57 groups.
Centralization patterns of groups indicated only one sector to be characterized by low status group centralization: in the other three sectors, high status occupations were centralized. One sector was characterized by almost exclusive predominance of high status groups, while another sector lacked high status groups. This sectoral pattern of social status distribution is explained as resulting from the location 43 of public housing, each within a particular sector.^® Even though status appears to be sectorally distributed, the dissimilarity of groups parallels the social distance.
Collison examined the concentration of status groups in housing type for Oxford and found high status groups to be concentrated in housing of greater value than were low status groups, who were con centrated in less expensive housing. The sectoral pattern also existed here. ^
Latif and Lutfiyya examined the social status residential distri bution of groups in five major metropolitan areas of Western Canada using income, occupation and education as indicators of social status and census tracts as the unit of analysis. The findings for the five cities indicate that the residential dissimilarity of status groups on all three indicators parallels social distance: high status and low status groups are also the most highly segregated groups.^ The centralization of groups differs by status indicator and city. Education tended not to differentiate groups with respect to their location with distance from the city canter. In Winnipeg, Calgary and Victoria, the group with no education was more decentralized than the group with a college education while in Edmonton, college educated persons tended to be decentralized and the group with no education was centralized, following the predicted pattern for a North American city. In Vancouver, the pattern was reversed. Centralization patterns for occupational groups for each of the cities was similar to the education category'distribution.
The authors indicate that income was the factor that best differentiated status groups into a residential distribution. Winnipeg, Edmonton, 44
Calgary and Victoria were all characterized by centralized low income groups and decentralized high income groups, as predicted. The excep tion to this pattern was Vancouver, where high income groups were centralized and low income groups decentralized in the peripheral areas of the city. Victoria's coastal location, climatic conditions and resort characteristics were given as possible reasons for this inverse pattern of centralization: the city was inhabited high cost apartments near the downtown area, moreover, their income levels had remained high.^
The study concludes that the Burgess model adequately describes the cities, with Vancouver excepted, and that the dissimilarity and segrega tion patterns support the earlier findings of the Duncan's.
While not a study of a North American city, Mehta's studies of status distribution patterns in Poona, India use the indexes introduced by the Duncan's and thus provide a cross-cultural comparison of social status distribution based on measures of income, occupation, education, caste and religion. The studies are also longitudinal, providing an examination of change. ^
Income, occupation and education groups were found to be dissimilar to each other in their areal distribution for both time periods. High and low status groups were most dissimilar to each other. High status groups were more segregated than low status groups, which were the second most segregated, at both time periods. These findings are in agreement with the findings of other studies. The centralization pattern for both time periods describes an inverse relationship of status and distance from the city center. High status groups were centralized at both times, 63 but were centralized to a lesser degree in 1965 than in 1837. 45
Mehta explains this lack of change as a function of the 'absence of factors deemed necessary for city expansion by Burgess: a relatively low population growth rate, rudimentary transportation and communication systems, low purchasing power of in-migrants, and the low social mobility because of the existent caste structure. Because of the lack of these factors, the urban land market was not operating to change the distri bution of social characteristics in space, or to change the nature of areal land use. Moreover, what new industry that did develop located on the periphery of the city in the traditional location of the slums, hence no movement in the population was created.^
Spatial distribution of caste and religious groups present addi tional evidence to confirm the findings of Mehta's first study.
Mehta presents six generalizations concerning social status residential segregation and these have served as initial hypotheses for several following studies:
1. The phenomenon of residential dissimilarity is universal
and tends to increase with increasing disparity between
the groups' socio-economic status or prestige ranking.
2. The phenomenon of segregation is universal, and the
curve is characteristically U-shaped.
3. The processes of urbanization and modernization have
relatively little impact on the previous two generali
zations .
4. Differential residential centralization is universal.
Which group is centralized is a function of the level
of development of the society. 5. Those groups which are highly centralized are highly
segregated, also highly segregated are those groups
which are highly decentralized.
6. Those groups neither highly centralized or decentralized
are not highly segregated.^6
The North American pattern, as examined by these studies, Mehta's excepted, can be described by the centralization of social status groups low status groups reside in the areas closest to the city center, while high status groups reside in the outer areas of the city. The deviation of group location in this schema is explained as a case of status dis- equilibria--where the measures of status do not order in a similar manner, or as a lack of homogeneity in status categories or units of analysis.
Status appears to be distributed with distance in these studies: where a sectoral distribution is found, its presence is explained as the reflection of distorting factors such as the location of industry, or the presence of an attractive service or place of work, such as a univer sity, or the influence of the location of public housing. While these cases could also be explained by Hoyt's hypothesis of status group distribution, the authors' explain the deviations as reflections of distorting factors which are recognized by the Burgess hypothesis.
Uyecki's and Mehta's longitudinal studies find status distribution change indicative of the Burgess model. Mehta listed the factors that were absent that might have produced change if present. Haggerty examined the Burgess model longitudinally to evaluate the influence of time on the patterning of the social status residential distribution 47 within the city. Taking eight cities having different ages, or times of settlement, as a sample and using median education of the census tract as the measure of social status for the area, Haggerty constructed three zones for each city and calculated the transition probability of change for each tract in each zone. The method utilized to test the hypothesis of time as a factor in the distribution pattern is Markov chain analysis.
This method enables the researcher to treat a discrete variable: time, in this study, is operationalized by three different census years and is thus a discrete, instead of continuous, variable. Change was opera tionalized as an increase or decrease in tract median years of education to more or less than the city education median: if a tract had been below the city median in the previous time period, but exceeded it in the current time period, a change had occurred. This occurrence is examined over time to see if the characteristics of areas operate in the predicted direction: a peripheral movement of high status. Haggerty indicates that five of the cities that had a direct relationship of distance and status at the initial observation time had maintained that pattern at the final observation time. Two cities that had an inverse relationship between distance and status at the initial observation reversed and had a direct relationship at the final observation time. Only one city did not fit this pattern. Haggerty concludes that time is an important factor in the Burgess model, and that the social status characteristics of areas tend to conform to the Burgess hypothesis: there is a change in the central areas to a lowei status configuration over time, not a higher status level. A direct relation between status and distance from the 67 city center emerges with time. ______48
Haggerty examined only North American cities, however, and it can not be determined from his study whether or not cities which are not
North American follow this pattern. The following section discusses this aspect.
The Evolutionary Sequence
Although studies of the social status spatial distribution indicate different centralization configurations for North American and Latin
American cities, and many of the Latin American studies indicate the reason for the difference is cultural, arising from the Laws of the
Indies, Schnore proposed that the difference was not cultural, but economic.^
Drawing from Sjoberg's work on pre-industrial cities, Schnore pro poses that the Latin American and North American models are not competing models in the explanation of spatial distribution, but stages in an over all evolutionary sequence of urban spatial development.
Sjoberg presents a list of structural constants for pre-industrial cities: pre-industrial cities function as government or religious centers of activity, secondarily as commercial centers; land use patterns are indicative of occupational or ethnic differences while also exhibiting little specialization of use; the elite dominate the class system and reside near the city center; there is a lack of a middle class; commerce, excepting large-scale commerce, is considered demeaning as an occupation by the elite; there is specialization by total product in manufacturing and standardization is notably lacking, hence manufacturing enterprises are typically of a small-scale; finally there is a lack of credit and 49 7n capital formation facilities. These characteristics are exhibited
by many of the Latin American cities studied. Schnore also indicates that the central plaza that is mentioned as a predominate factor in the
Latin American city pattern is a characteristic of pre-industrial cities, whether the city was Aztec, Mexican, European, or early American. The plaza-centered pattern was characteristic of the pre-industrial class of cities, regardless of culture, thus the Latin American pattern of
status spatial distribution cannot be the result of cultural factors peculiar to those Latin American cities. Furthermore, this pattern has
7 *1 been observed as present in vastly different time periods. Schnore concludes that cities exhibiting this pattern have in common an economic base that does not utilize technology: these cities exist in a society with an undeveloped economy.
Conversely, North American cities can be subsumed under the general category of cities with a developed economy that relies heavily on a technological base: cities with highly centralized low status groups are found in developed societies.
Schnore predicts that the pattern of urban spatial geometry follows an evolutionary sequence shaped by the factors of economic development.
Thus, the Latin American and North American patterns are sequential patterns in the process of spatial distribution. Schnore reflects
Burgess: cities are a dynamic set of processes. For this change to occur, Schnore indicates that three independent variables need to be present: population growth; local transportation technology that is cheap, rapid and efficient; and social power, or the ability of the dominant social status group to freely determine its location in the 50 urban mosaic. If these factors are present, the urban land market operates to sort the population into areas with distinctive social characteristics.^2 The residential structure of the pre-industrial city will move in a predictable direction with the occurrence of these factors.
Schnore's major contribution is the proposal that the two different patterns are parts of a sequential model of residential distribution.
Greer more thoroughly discusses the processes which operate in the evolutionary model. Greer's contribution is the theoretical description of the "increase in scale." An increase in societal scale reflects changes in the geographical division of labor and the processes of inte- 73 gration.
Involved in an increase of scale is an increase in the rate of energy transformation--the use of inanimate energy versus animate energy— which results in the decrease of the time-space ratio through the develop ment of more elaborate and extensive systems of transportation and communication: distance is no longer a barrier for activities. The resultant dispersion of activities creates the need for an expanding and improved network of coordinating and control organizations which are able to operate through the improved transportation and communication systems. Concommittant with a shift in energy sources, there is a shift in the labor force composition: labor becomes more skilled and specialized and an increase in the proportion of the labor force who make, process and distribute communications is seen. Because of the application of technology to the activities necessary to sustain a large population, 51 members of the population are available to perform in areas of newly- created skills and in organizations that provide more abstract services.
The increasing differentiation of the population of the population also results in an increasing interdependence of the functional segments of the society which are coordinated and controlled by an increasing network of organizations, transportation and communication networks.
The increase of scale includes the development of a manufacturing economic base, and is accompanied by a greater variety of levels of occupation, education and income among the population, which becomes spatially differ entiated by the same developments that affected the reorganization of other societal components.^4
While Greer indicates the nature of the processes of modernization that transform the relationships within a society, the more precise occurrence of the process is left unexplored. Modernization is a process, therefore it will not occur simultaneously in all parts of a society.
That increase in scale is not a simultaneous pervasive process in a soceity is demonstrated by the findings in a study by Schwirian and
Smith. Using Puerto Rico as the societal setting, they indicate that the residential distribution of the primate city is not representative 75 of the residential distribution of other cities in the society. San
Juan, the primate city of Puerto Rico, exhibited an ecological structure similar to that of North American, or developed, cities while the cities of Ponce and Mayaguez exhibited less differentiated ecological structures and residential distribution patterns more akin to Latin American, or 76 undeveloped, city patterns. 52
According to Schwirian and Smith, the primate city of a society is
first to undergo an increase of scale that results in a transformation of
the residential distribution. Because of its function in a society as
an administrative center of some type, the primate city is the gateway
to the larger world and contains a more differentiated population and
network of organizations than do the relatively more isolated cities of
the society. The existence of these conditions are more conducive to
the initiation of development that results in a residential distribution
transformation in the primate city. As the level of economic development
increases and the transportation and communication networks expand to
include other cities in the society, those cities gradually experience
the same spatial transformation. This diffusion of change in a modernizing
society proceeds from the primate city, or largest city, to the next
largest city and so on down the line as the level of economic development
increases.77
Not only does an increase of scale result in a residential distribu
tion transformation in a predictable direction within the city, but it
also results in the change occurring in a predictable order within the
society.
Schwirian and Rico address both these aspects of change in their paper, "The Residential Distribution of Status Groups in Metropolitan 78 Puerto Rico." Using census categories of occupation, education and
income as measures of social status for the Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas of Puerto Rico; San Juan, Ponce and Mayaguez, indexes of dissimilarity, segregation and centralization were computed for 1960
data. All three measures of social status indicated dissimilar residential 53 distributions for status groups, such that the groups that were most similar to each other were those closest in the status hierarchy while those most dissimilar were those groups the farthest away from each other in the status hierarchy. Spatial distance paralleled social distance. The groups at the top and the bottom of the hierarchy were the most segregated groups. The distribution of segregation scores roughly formed a U-shaped curve, with high status groups having higher degrees of segregation than low status groups.^
The index of centralization revealed the presence of different residential distributions in metropolitan Puerto Rico. High status groups in San Juan were decentralized while low status groups were centralized. This positive relationship between status and distance from the city center is characteristic of the North American, or developed, city pattern. The one exception was the centralization of the highest 80 income group along the beach front. Ponce and Mayaguez had centraliza tion patterns indicative of the Latin American status spatial distribution with the high status groups residing near the central plaza and the low status groups dispersed in the city periphery. The rank-order correla tion of status ranking and the measure of centralization is stronger for Mayaguez than it is for Ponce, with the exception of occupation:
Mayaguez had a classic Latin American spatial configuration.81 Ponce had reversals in income and education groups. While both cities were more areally compact and smaller in population than San Juan, Ponce is the larger of the two, and these deviations might be indicative of an incipient pattern change. 54
The differential centralization patterns are the unique findings of this paper: these findings provide cross-sectional support for the evolutionary sequence of urban residential distribution patterning.
The findings also provide indirect evidence in favor of an increase of scale as a factor in the distribution transformation, as well as city size as a determinant factor.
The dissimilarity, segregation and centralization findings support
Mehta's generalizations of social status spatial distribution discussed previously in this chapter. The Schwirian and Rico study provides the basic framework for the research in the following chapters.
In summary, this chapter has presented and documented generalizations relating to the social status characteristics of groups and the social sta tus characteristics of areas. Two contrasting models of social status spatial distribution were presented and then discussed as sequential stages in a more general evolutionary model of spatial patterning linked to population size and growth of the city, and to the level of economic development of the city and the society.
The Latin American model of status spatial distribution was des cribed and the similarities of the studies1 findings discussed. This model was later presented as representative of a more general model of status distribution in pre-industrial cities in economically undeveloped societies.
While describing North American city social status spatial distribu tion, the Burgess model was also presented as representative of the sta tus spatial distribution pattern of industrialized cities. The implicit 55 assumptions in the model and the interplay of the urban land market create spatially separate social groups and areas distinctly different in their use, both of which give form to the city.
When the Burgess model is presented longitudinally, the tendency for the areal distribution of status groups is a positive relation between status and distance from the center of the city. The presentation of this evidence led to an exploration of the factors involved in ini tiating the process of internal city structure change. The phenomenon of increase in societal scale was presented in this light: the differen tiation and integration processes which create conditions that initiate a social status residential distribution change. Empirical evidence was then presented to document the nature of this process that initiates in the primate city of a society and diffuses through it.
Evidence from a cross-sectional study of social status residential distribution in metropolitan areas of a developing (modernizing) society was given. This evidence indicates that change appears to operate in the predicted direction: it initiates in the primate city and diffuses to smaller cities in the society, and within cities, the centralization of status groups changes from a pattern of high status group centraliza tion to one of low status group centralization. Dissimilarity and segregation of status groups are not affected by this process.
Generally the findings of the studies reviewed here indicate that social status groups in metropolitan areas have differential residential distributions. In Latin American and other pre-industrial cities, high status groups are centralized, in contrast to their decentralized resi dential location in North American or industrial cities. In North 56
American cities, over time, low status groups tend to become more centralized: evidence suggests that this may also be true for pre
industrial cities, reflecting the impact of population growth and an
increase in societal scale. Cross-sectionally, social status groups may be distributed either by gradient or by sector, or by a combination of both.
The following propositions serve as a summary for the previous studies of social status residential segregation, dissimilarity and centralization as well as the hypotheses to be examined by this study.
These propositions are:
1. Status groups will have dissimilar residential distri
butions.
2. The degree of residential dissimilarity between status
groups is a function of the social distance between them.
3. There will be an increasing dissimilarity between groups
over time, a function of city size and the level of develop
ment.
4. The most residentially segregated groups are those at
the top and the bottom of the status hierarchy.
5. The centralization pattern of San Juan will indicate
a positive relationship between social status and
distance, while the relationship of Ponce and Mayaguez
will be negative.
6. There will be an increasing centralization of low status
groups over time for each of the three cities.
7. Social status will be distributed sectorally at each
point in time for each of the three cities. FOOTNOTES
1 Leo F. Schnore, "On the Spatial Structure of Cities in the Two Americas," Phillip M. Hauser, ed., The Study of Urbanization (New York: John Wiley, 1965), pp. 347-398; Gideon Sjoberg, "The Pre-industrial City," New York: The Free Press, 1960), pp. 91-105; Scott Greer, The Emerging City, (New York: The Free Press, 1962), pp. 41-55; Surinder K. Mehta, "Patterns of Residence in Poona, India, by Caste and Religion 1822-1965," Kent P. Schwirian, ed., Comparative Urban Structure: Studies in the Ecology of Cities, (Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company, 1974), pp. 493-512; Kent P. Schwirian and Jesus Rico-Velasco, "The Residential Distribution of Status Groups in Puerto Rico's Metro politan Areas," Demography, 8 (1971), pp. 81-90.
^Schnore, op. cit., p. 374. 3 Schwirian and Rico, op. cit.
^Asael T. Hansen, "The Ecology of A Latin American City," E. B. Reuter, ed., Race and Culture Contacts (New York: McGraw Hill, 1934), pp. 126-127; Schwirian and Rico, op. cit., p. 414.
5 Ibid., p. 138.
6 Ibid., p. 138.
7 Ibid., pp. 134-135.
8Ibid., p. 139. q Ibid., p. 124 and p. 134.
^Norman S. Hayner, "Mexico City: Its Growth and Configuration," American Journal of Sociology, 50 (1945), pp. 296-297.
11 Ibid., pp. 298-299. A high status home is called a residencia and is described as a two-story house with an interior patio occupied by a single family. A low status residence is called a vecindad and is described as a one-story building with rooms opening on an interior patio and occupied by many families.
12Ibid., p. 301.
13Ibid., p. 298. 57 58
14 Ibid., pp. 302-303.
15Ibid., p. 300.
16Ibid., p. 301. 17 Norman S. Hayner, "Differential Social Change in a Mexican Town," Social Forces 26 (1948), p. 384.
18Ibid., p. 383.
19Ibid., p. 390. 20 Harry B. Hawthorn and Audrey Hawthorn, "The Shape of a City: Some Observations on Sucre, Bolivia," Sociology and Social Research 33 (1948), pp. 88-90.
21Ibid., p. 91.
22 Olen E. Leonard, "La Paz, Bolivia: Its Population and Growth," American Sociological Review 13 (1948), p. 449 and p. 454.
23Ibid., pp. 452-454.
2^Ibid., pp. 452-454. There is no decentralization of upper status groups on the hillsides because of the uncomfortable physical effects of living at that high an altitude. 25 Theodore Caplow, "The Social Ecology of Guatemala City," George A. Theodorson, ed., Studies in Human Ecology (New York: Harper and Row, 1961), pp. 339-346.
26Ibid., p. 340. 27 Dan Stanislawski, "The Anatomy of Eleven Towns in Michoacan," George A. Theodorson, ed., Studies in Human Ecology (New York: Harper and Row, 1961), p. 349.
28Ibid., pp. 352-353. 29 Floyd 0. Dotson and Lillian Dotson, "Ecological Trends in the City of Guadalajara, Mexico," Social Forces, 32 (1954), p. 370.
30Ibid., pp. 368-369.
31Ibid., p. 371.
32Ibid., pp. 372-374. 33 Leo F. Schnore, op. cit., pp. 363-364. 59
34Hansen, op. cit., pp. 135-138; Hayner, 1945, op. cit., pp. 299- 301; Hayner, 1948, o p . cit., pp. 383-384; Hawthorn and Hawthorn, op. cit., pp. 90-91; Leonard, op. cit., p. 454; Caplow, op. cit., pp. 339-342; Stanislawski, op. cit/, p / 352; Dotson and Dotson, op. cit., pp. 368-371. 35 Schnore, op. cit., p. 361.
36Ibid., p. 362. 37 Ernest W. Burgess, Robert Park and R. D. McKenzie, The City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1925), pp. 47-62. 38, Ibid., pp. 50-51. 39 'ibid., P- 54. 40 'ibid., P- 75. 41 Ibid., P- 73. 42 Ibid., pp. 56-61. 43 Ibid., P* 2 and pp. 9-10. 44 Ibid., P- 10. 45 Ibid., P- 52 and p. 56.
^Schnore, op. cit., p. 354.
4^Ralph Thomlinson, Urban Structure: The Social and Spatial Character of Cities (New York: Random House, 1969), pp. 146-147. 48 Robert Park, 'The Urban Community as a Spatial Pattern and a Moral Order," Ernest W. Brugess, ed., The Urban Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1926), p. 18. 49 0. D. and Beverly Duncan, "Residential Distribution and Occupa tional Stratification," American Journal of Sociology 60 (1955), p. 393.
50Ibid., p. 391.
31 Ibid., p. 394.
32Ibid., p. 393. 53 Ibid,, p. 390 et passim.
54Ibid., p. 389 and pp. 397-398. 60
^Eugene Uyecki, "Residential Distribution and Occupational Stratification, 1950-1960," American Journal of Sociology, 69 (1964), p. 495.
S6Ibid., p. 497. 57 Peter Collison and John Mogey, "Residence and Social Class in Oxford," American Journal of Sociology, 64 (1960), p. 604.
58Ibid., p. 601. 59 Peter Collison, "Occupation, Education and Housing in an English City," American Journal of Sociology, 65 (1960), p. 596.
^A. H. Latif and A. M. Lutfiyya, "Residential Segregation and Location of Social Status Groups in the Major Metropolitan Areas in Western Canada," unpublished paper, University of Manitoba, Canada, p. 23.
61Ibid., pp. 12-23. 62 Surinder K. Mehta, "Patterns of Residence in Poona (India) by Income, Education and Occupation (1937-1965)," Demography, 6 (1969), and Mehta, 1969, op. cit.
^Mehta, 1968, op. cit., pp. 403-409. 64 Ibid., p. 399 and p. 411.
88Mehta, 1969, o p . cit., pp. 506-507.
66Ibid., pp. 509-510. 67 Lee J. Haggerty, "Another Look at the Burgess Hypothesis: Time as an Important Variable," American Journal of Sociology, 76 (1971), p. 1091. 68„ , Schnore, op. cit.
69Ibid., p. 371. 70 Sjoberg, op. cit., pp. 216-218. 71 Schnore, op. cit., p . 369.
72Ibid., pp. 372-373. 73 Greer, op. cit., p. 71.
74Ibid., pp. 41-47. 61
Kent P. Schwirian and Ruth K. Smith, "Primacy, Modernization and Urban Structure: The Ecology of Puerto Rican Cities," Kent P. Schwirian, ed., Comparative Urban Structures Studies in the Ecology of Cities, (Lexington, Massachusetts : D. C." Heath and Company, 1974 0 76 Ibid., p. 330.
77Ibid., p. 325. 78 Schwirian and Rico, op. cit. 79 Ibid., p. 421. 80 Ibid., p. 419. 81 Ibid., p. 420. CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY AND HYPOTHESES
The intention of this study is to examine the characteristics of social status groups and the characteristics of areas, and to evaluate the change in social status residential distribution over time in the metropolitan areas of a developing society.
This chapter discusses the data and delineates the techniques which are employed for the above purpose: the indexes of dissimilarity and segregation, which delineate the characteristics of social status group, and the analysis of covariance, which delineates the character istics of areas and provides a test of the evolutionary model of social status residential distribution change. The presentation of the tech niques discusses the general nature of the hypotheses present in this study: the specific hypotheses for the study are repeated at the conclusion of this chapter.
Data and Variables
All data for the study are from past United States censuses of
Puerto Rico, hence both the population characteristics and areal defi nitions used are synonymous with the census information used for the
United States in general. For the gross city-fringe differentiation of population characteristics, data of censuses from 1899 to 1970 is
62 63 presented for San Juan, Ponce, Mayaguez and Caguas. In the more detailed areal examination of residential distribution characteristics, census tract data for 1960 and 1970 for the Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas of San Juan, Ponce, and Mayaguez is used.* in both the urban-fringe and census tract comparisons, the areas and boundaries through time are defined using the 1970 census definitions so that the areas are comparable through time.
The reliability of the data is not questioned because of its source. Moreover, the United States Census Bureau indicates in its publications what the data gathering procedure entailed in detail, and unlike the available data of other developing societies where data 2 reliability presents a problem to the researcher, Puerto Rico does not.
This is a major advantage of using Puerto Rico as the setting of a developing society.
Following Schwirian and Rico, three indicators of social status are taken from the census: income, occupation and education.^ The categories of education are identical for 1960 and 1970: the categories for income and occupation were adjusted to be identical for both times.
For times prior to 1960, an attempt is made to make categories as comparable as possible.
Income is specifically defined as annual family income for the year preceeding the census: twelve categories are presented.^
Occupation is for employed males age fourteen and over: it con sists of nine categories.^ Since many women work only part-time and tend to be concentrated in particular occupational categories, it was thought that their addition would distort the nature of the indicator. 64 The eight categories of education reflect the highest educational attainment of people twenty-five years of age and older.6
These three indicators provide an operationalization of social status. As previous studies have shown, a variety of social status 7 indicators provides a more comprehensive measure of the phenomenon.
The dependent variable in the study is social status residential distribution. How these status properties are distributed spatially is the major concern of the study. Of primary theoretical importance in Q explaining a change in this distribution is time. Time as an indepen dent variable is of categorical construction operationalized by the year of the census. Inherent in this framework are the changes which occur between censuses which are related to modernization and other processes which theoretically contribute to change in the residential distribution of social characteristics. Puerto Rico was selected as the setting for this study because of the ongoing modernization which 9 the society has experienced during the time period of interest.
These changes are discussed in the first two chapters.
The definition of distance will be presented later in the chapter in conjunction with the particular techniques of analysis.
The addition of census data other than for 1960 represents an extension of the original study, as does the addition of Caguas as a city in the analysis.10 The following section of the chapter presents the techniques of analysis which replicate and extend the original study.
Techniques of Analysis
The techniques of analysis employed in this study deal with the characteristics of groups, the location of groups, the characteristics 65 of areas, and change in the residential distribution of the charac teristics. This section explores each technique and its relationship to the particular hypothesis it examines.
In order to ascertain the characteristics of groups, the indexes of dissimilarity and segregation are employed. The concern of the analysis here reflects the theoretical notion of differentiation within the population and the resultant social distance between the groups.
Previous studies have concluded that social distance is reflected by spatial distance between groups^ that the differentiation between groups increases over time.I2
To measure the differential distribution between pairs of status groups, the index of dissimilarity is computed. The formula is:
Cl) £ X^-Y^ /2 where is the proportion of the total persons in sta tus group X that live in area i; Y^ is the proportion of the total persons in status group Y that live in area i. The index values range from a lower limit of 0, indicating no dissimilarity of distribution between two groups, to an upper limit of 100 which indicates total dissimilarity of residential distribution between two groups. The index is interpreted as the proportion of one group which would have to residentially relocate in order to match the residential distribu- 13 tion of the other gTOup. The index scores tend to increase as the social status difference between groups increases: the dissimilarity of residential distribution should be greater between the high and low status groups than between groups of intermediate status. A reversal of groups on the dissimilarity index is indicative of status dis- equilibria or other disrupting factors.^ Smaller cities and less 66 developed cities reflect these conditions in having lower dissimilarity
index values: the differential distribution between groups is not as
great as in larger and more developed cities.
To measure the total segregation of specific groups, the index of
segregation is employed: (2) E X^-Y^ /2(1-P) where is the proportion of all status groups in area i, and P is the proportion status group X
is of all groups. In effect, the index of segregation measures the degree of dissimilarity betweem the residential distribution of one
specific group and all other groups combined. The index value range
is identical to that of the dissimilarity index: the higher the index
1 6 value, the more segregated the specific group is from all other groups.
The degree of segregation of status groups is a function of social distance: the most residentially segregated groups are those at the
top and bottom of the status hierarchy while the least segregated
groups are the intermediate groups in the status hierarchy. When
social status and segregation degree are plotted, a U-shaped curve tends to describe the relationship.*^
The previous indexes explore the characteristics of status groups vis-a-vis one another. The following indexes examine the location of
status groups with reference to particular spatial foci.
The first measure is the index of centralization: (3) percentage of group X residing in the city______100. percentage of the total population residing in the city
The spatial focus of this measure is the municipal boundary which divides
residential areas into urban and fringe designations. If the percentage
of the group of interest residing in the city exceeds that of the total population residing in the city, then that group is relatively more 67 1 8 centralized in residential location than the rest of the population.
The higher the value of the index, the more centralized the group— that
group is more clustered within the city area than the rest of the popu
lation.
According to Winsborough, urban expansion, or fringe growth, is
the result of variation in two aspects of urban population distribu- 19 txon: congestion and concentration. Congestion is the degree of population density; concentration is the degree of population dispersal
over the urban area. Over time, a city population shows increasing
areal congestion and deconcentration with reference to the city center which tends to result in an increased growth of fringe areas. If the municipal boundary is held constant over time, then the population
composition of the fringe can be examined to ascertain its c h a n g e . 20
The change can be evaluated by: (4) ti/to where tg is the centraliza
tion value for the initial observation, and t^ is the centralization value for the second, or later, observation for the group of interest.
If the ratio of the two observations is greater than 1.0, then the
group is relatively more centralized at the second point in time than
it was at the first while a value of less than 1.0 indicates the
group is relatively less centralized in its residential location than
it was initially.21 With an increase in population and scale of the
city, a change in the composition of fringe areas over time is predicted.
This measure is applied to status indicators for the four metropolitan
areas of Puerto Rico for 1899 to 1970, an extension of the original
study. 68
The second measure of status group locational characteristics in 22 metropolitan areas is the mean-mile distance measure devised by Gibbs.
The formula is: (5) EDP/N where D is the distance of the area in miles from the city center, P is the size of the particular status group in the area at that distance, N is the total number of the particular group in the city, and the summation is over all areas in the city. The lower the index value, the less the mean-mile distance of the particu lar group from the city center and the relatively more centralized it is. A higher value indicates a location further from the city center
22 and relative decentralization in residential location.
It should be noted that there is no defined upper or lower limit for this index.25 In order for the index to be comparable when used on a number of cities, it is necessary to define city center similarly for each city under scrutiny. For San Juan, the city center is defined as the intersection of Ponce de Leon Boulevard and Hippodromo Avenue in the Santurce section of the city, a commercial and financial hub of
San Juan. For Ponce and Mayaguez, the city center is the plaza mayor,2^
The definitions of city center reflect the city center as the focal point of economic and administrative activities, a communality of both industrial and non-industrial cities.25
The areal unit in this analysis is the census tract. Distance, in miles, is measured from the city center to the geographical center of each tract. Unfortunately, some census tracts are not identical for
1960 and 1970, making a true comparison impossible. However, a rela tive comparison of group ranking on the index is possible. Over time, low status groups tend to become increasingly centralized, given the 69 assumptions of the Burgess model are operative. ^ A rank-order corre lation of social status and mean-mile distance is used for both times and compared. A positive relationship between status and distance is expected for the North American pattern, a negative relationship for the Latin American pattern. In cities undergoing a changing residen tial distribution, the magnitude of the relationship tends not to be as great as in a city with a stable residential distribution. Schwirian and Rico indicate a moderate relationship for status and distance for
Ponce, the second largest city in Puerto Rico.^ That Ponce should be changing is a function of its size and level of development and position 28 in the city-size hierarchy.
To ascertain change in the characteristics of areas over time, thereby providing an evaluation of Schnore's evolutionary model, an analysis of covariance is performed on the 1960 and 1970 data for San
Juan, Ponce and Mayaguez. This analysis indicates whether status char acteristics are distributed by sector or distance and whether or not the distribution of characteristics has changed with the intervening time.
For this analysis, each city is divided into sectors: four sectors each in San Juan, Ponce, and Mayaguez. In each case, the sectors originate at the city center. Sector and time of observation are categorical independent variables; distance is a continuous indepen dent variable. A composite index of social status is constructed so that the status is also a continuous variable: the dependent variable.
Analysis of covariance is utilized because it is a technique suitable for testing the hypothesis of distribution and of change given the 70 nature of the variables, and because it best deals with the unequal 29 size of the groups in the analysis. A regression approach to the analysis of covariance is utilized because it provides a more direct and convenient method of computation for the equations and tests of significance.
The regression approach to the analysis of covariance assumes that the dependent variable scores are normally distributed and have equal variances at each value of the independent variable, and that error is random and normally distributed at each value of the indepen- 31 dent variable. Dummy coding is used for both year and sector, and 32 the equation is solved using the least squares technique. T1 The full model examined in this study is: (6) Y=an + E a-A---+ i=7 n n n E bjBj + b-^X + E ciC^ + E djDj where Y is social status, X is dis- j = z i=7 j=z tance, ag is the intercept, bj is the slope, A is the year, B is the sector, C is the interaction for year and distance, D is the interaction for sector and distance, i is the year subscript, and j is the sector subscript.
This model contains all the pertinent variables and combinations to test the hypotheses relevant to the characteristics of areas.
The construction of the composite index of social status is accomplished by the employment of factor analysis, a technique which reduces a number of indicators to a common underlying factor describing the phenomenon. The factor scores obtained from the factor analysis are utilized to construct the status index using a method outlined by
Heise and Bohmstedt which illuminates the relationship between path 71 analysis and factor analysis, thereby indicating the relationship between a factor and the composite s c o r e . 33 This relationship allows indicators of reliability, validity and invalidity to be constructed to evaluate the degree of each for the composite index. ^ The resul tant utility of these meausres allows a more thorough knowledge of the empirical and theoretical aspects of the social status indicator and improves upon the parsimony of presentation.
The Hypotheses
The previous section detailed the techniques of analysis used to evaluate the hypotheses which were presented at the end of Chapter II.
They are repeated here:
1. Status groups will have dissimilar residential
distributions.
2. The degree of residential dissimilarity between
status groups is a function of the social distance
between them.
3. There will be an increasing dissimilarity between
groups over time, a function of city size and the
level of development.
4. The most residentially segregated groups are those
at the top and the bottom of the status hierarchy.
5. The centralization pattern of San Juan will have a
positive relationship between social status and dis
tance, while the relationship of Ponce and Mayaguez
will be negative. 72 6. There will be an increasing centralization of
low status groups over time for each of the
three cities.
7. Social status will be distributed sectorally at
each point in time for each of the three cities.
This study is designed to provide a cross-sectional examination of characteristics of groups and of areas as well as a longitudinal exam ination and a test of changing residential distribution patterns.
The third, fifth and sixth hypotheses represent the extension of the original Schwirian and Rico study.
The following chapter discusses the findings concerning urban- fringe differentiation while Chapter V discusses the characteristics of groups and areas for the cities for 1960 and 1970. FOOTNOTES
U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office,] for 1910 through 1970; U. S. Department of War, Census t>f~ Porto Ricor 1899 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900].
2 Ibid. 3 Schwirian and Rico, op. cit.
^U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Censuses of Population and Housing, Census Tracts: 1960 (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962) pp. 178:29-34; pp. 179:29-37, pp. 180: 29-75; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Censuses of Population and Housing, Census Tracts: 1970 (Washington: U.S. Govern ment Printing Office, 1972), pp. 239:24-45, pp. 240:28-51, pp. 109-214.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid. 7 0. D. and Beverly Duncan, "Presidential Distribution and Occupa tional Stratification," American Journal of Sociology 60 (1955), pp. 387- 398; Eugene Uyecki, "Residential Distribution and Occupational Stratifi cation, 1950-1960," American Journal of Sociology 69 (1964), pp. ; Peter Collison, Occupation, Education and Housing in an English City," American Journal of Sociolo.py 65 (1960), pp. ; Surinder K. Mehta, "Patterns of Residence in Poona, India, by Caste and Religion: 1822-1965," in Kent P. Schwirian, ed., Comparative Urban Structure: Studies in the Ecology of Cities. (Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company, 1974), pp. 493-512; Kent P. Schwirian and Jesus Rico-Velasco, "The Residential Distribution of Status Groups in Puerto Rico’s Metropolitan Areas," ibid., pp. 413-421.
8 Ernest W. Burgess, Robert Park, and R. D. McKenzie, The City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1925), pp. 47-62; Lee J. Haggerty, "Another Look at the Burgess Hypothesis: Time as an Important Variable," American Journal of Sociology 76 (1971), ; Leo F. Schnore, "On the'Structure of Cities’in the Two Americas," Phillip M. Hauser, ed., The Study of Urganization (New York: John Wiley, 1965), pp. 347-398; Schwirian and Rico, op7 cit.
73 74 9 Schwirian and Rico, op. cit., p. 421.
^ Ibid., p. 416.
^ D u n c a n and Duncan, op. cit., p. 396; Mehta, op. cit., pp. 509- 510; Schwirian and Rico, op. cit., p. 416.
12 Uyecki, op. cit., 13 Duncan and Duncan, op." cit., p. 388; Schwirian and Rico, op. cit., p. 416; Schwirian, ed., o p . cit., pp. 14-15.
^Duncan and Duncan, op. cit., p. 393; Schwirian and Rico, op. cit., p. 417. 15 Schwirian and Rico, op. cit., p. 388; Kent P. Schwirian and Ruth K. Smith, "Primacy, Modernization and Urban Structure: The Ecology of Puerto Rican Cities," Kent P. Schwirian, ed., Comparative Urban Structure: Studies in the Ecology of Cities (Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Co., 1974).
■^Duncan and Duncan, op. cit., p. 388; Schwirian and Rico, op. cit., p. 416.
17 Duncan and Duncan, Ibid., p. 391; Mehta, op. cit., pp. 509-510; Schwirian and Rico, op. cit., pp. 417-419.
18 Kent P. Schwirian, "Intemaal Structure of the Metropolis," Kent P. Schwirian, ed., Contemporary Topics in Urban Sociology (Morristown, New Jersey: General Learning Press, 1977), pp. 187-188.
■^Hal Winsborough, "An Ecological Approach to the Theory of Suburban ization,"
20 Burgess; Schnore; Haggerty, op. cit.
21Schwirian, 1977, op. cit., p. 189.
22Jack P. Gibbs, ed., Urbpi Research Methods (New York, D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.: 1961) ,"pp. 243-244'. 23 Schwirian and Rico, op. cit,, p. 416.
^Gibbs, op. cit., p. 244. 2 5 Schwirian and Rico, op. cit., p. 416. 26 Burgess, op. cit., p. 52; Gideon Sjoberg, 1961, p. 27 Uyecki; Schnore; Schwirian and Rico; Schwirian and Smith; op. cit 28 Schwirian and Rico, op. cit., p . 420. 29 Schwirian and Smith, op. cit., p. 325.
Anderson and Egeland, Schwirian and Matre, Schwirian and Rico.
31 Fred N. Kerlinger and Elazar J. Pedhazur, Multiple Regression m Behavioral Research (New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973), Chapter 10.
^2Ibid., Chapter 3.
•^Ibid., Chapter 7; Norman H. Nie et. al., Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Second Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975), p. 328.
■^David R. Heise and George W. Honmstedt, "Validity, Invalidity, and Reliability," in Sociological Methodology (San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, Inc., 1970), pp. 106-113.
35 Ibid., pp. 114-116. Reliability is calculated as:
n _ n 1 ' 1.1 I ' |=1 f=l CovCXj.Xj)
Validity is calculated as: n .------^l^i-^ikf \ J !=1f=i Cov(Xi,Xj)
And the invalidity is the reliability minus the validity. Where: h2 is the communality,(T2 is the variance; Cov(X^, Xj) is the covariance and is the factor loading of the i^h item on the k^h factor. CHAPTER IV
METROPOLITAN GROWTH AND CITY-FRINGE DIFFERENTIATION
Introduction
The major functions of this chapter are to examine metropolitan growth and city-fringe differentiation. Metropolitan growth is ex plored first: the population growth of San Juan, Ponce, Mayaguez, and
Caguas is traced over time in order to ascertain when population growth or decline occurred and where it occurred: the central city or fringe of the metropolitan area. Furthermore, population data for the muni- cipios that compose San Juan, and data for the barrios that compose the remaining metropolitan areas are presented to pinpoint population change within the central city and fringe areas for the period of observation. Data are available from 1899 to 1970.
By examining the population for each time and for each area within the metropolitan area, it is possible to determine not only overall growth, but also the centralization and decentralization of the popula tion. For older, larger cities, decentralization, or a movement of the population from the central city to the fringe area is characteristic while centralization, or a greater growth rate in the central city compared with that of the fringe is characteristic of younger, smaller cities.
The proportion of the total societal population residing in the metropolitan areas, which are San Juan, Ponce, Mayaguez and Caguas for
76 77
Puerto Rico, reflects the metropolitan concentration of the population
while the degree of urbanization is the proportion of the population
residing in places of 2,500 people or more: an increase in the percent
of the population that resides in urban areas indicates an increase in
the urbanization of a society.
The second function of this chapter is to examine city-fringe dif-
ferentition for labor force employment in agricultural and manufacturing
industries; educational composition; occupational composition; income
composition; fertility composition; age composition; and housing compo
sition. These factors are representative of the structure which is
changed by an increase in societal scale: an increasingly differenti
ated population and a diversified economy with an increase in the
interdependence of parts resulting from the division of labor and a
necessity for a social control network to coordinate the parts is
involved in the increase of scale process. Thus a change in the factors
above provides an indicator of societal scale. It is expected that an
increase in scale is concommittant with an increasing proportion of the
labor force employed in manufacturing industries, an increasing propor
tion of literate people, greater diversification of the occupational
structure, an increasing income, an increasing average age, and a de
creasing fertility rate. These factors, also reflective of a situation
conducive to social mobility, enable a differentiation of the population
on a number of characteristics and ultimately result in an urban geometry which reflects these characteristics. To some extent, the number of 78
housing units constructed is indicative not only of population growth and the nature of the economy, but also of a life-style change within the population and a changing distribution within the urban mosaic.
The expected pattern of occurrence for these changes tends to be exhibited first in the primate city. Within the city, change occurs first in the central city population and radiates outward to the fringe areas. The inclusion of the latter is dependent partially upon the local transportation technology as well as the rate of economic growth which would demand their inclusion. From the primate city, the process diffuses to other cities in the society, relative to their size compared with that of the primate cities: in a developing society, the process proceeds to the second largest city and diffuses within it, depending on its level of development.^
Urbanization and increase in scale tend to be complementary in a developing society: an increase in scale structurally requires urbani zation and population concentration to overcome the inertia presented by distance and rudimentary transportation and communication systems.
As these improve, the characteristics of the fringe population are ex pected to change as a result of population growth expanding into the gringe as well as a redefinition of desirable residential areas.
The following section presents the findings for metropolitan growth. 79
Metropolitan Growth
The population of Puerto Rico grew by 184.5 percent from 1899 to
1970 while the percent of the population that resided in urban areas 2 increased from 14.6 in 1899 to 58.1 in 1970. The percent of the pop ulation residing in the metropolitan areas of San Juan, Ponce, Mayaguez, or Caguas increased from 20.6 to 43.9 percent, as indicated by table 2.
San Juan contained the largest percent of the metropolitan population for each time of observation: in 1899, the percent was 43.4, and in
1970, it was 71.4. Moreover, San Juan contained 31.4 percent of the total Puerto Rican population in 1970, an increase from 8.9 percent in
1899 and indicating that San Juan is a primate city. The intercensus growth rate for the percent of the population in metropolitan areas indicates that the largest rate of increase was from 1920 to 1930, with the next highest rates from 1940 to 1950 and from 1950 to 1960. The rate of growth for 1960 to 1970 decreased, but remained above the growth rates occurring between 1899 and 1920. The growth rate for the percent of the metropolitan population in San Juan declined from 1950 to 1960 and from 1960 to 1970 when it was at its lowest, 3.8 percent. This same pattern of growth existed for the percent of the total Puerto
Rican population residing in the San Juan metropolitan area: from 1940 to 1950 the growth rate was 27.1 percent, declining from 13.8 percent in the 1960 to 1970 period. While the growth rates for the latter were consistently higher than those of the former, the rate of growth slowed TABLE 2
POPULATION SIZE, CITY-FRINGE POPULATION DISTRIBUTIONS, AND INTERCENSUS GROWTH RATES FOR PUERTO RICAN METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1899-1970
Population For Each Census Year Growth Rate For Each Intercensus Period
1899- 1910- 1920- 1930- 1940- 1950- 1960- 1899 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 m o 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
Total population of Puerto Rico 954243 1118012 1299809 1543913 1869225 2210703 2349544 2712033 14.7 16.2 18.8 21.1 18.2 6.3 15.4 Total metropolitan area population 196263 248400 308008 429045 573496 782819 942513 1191746 26.6 24.0 39.3 33.7 36.5 20.4 26.4 Percent of the total population in metro politan areas 20.6 22.2 23.7 27.8 30.7 35.4 40.1 43.9 7.8 6.8 17.3 10.4 15.3 13.3 9.5 Percent of the metro politan population in San Juan 43.4 48.0 51.6 54.9 59.0 65.0 68.8 71.4 10.6 7.5 6.4 7.5 10.2 5.8 3.8 Percent of the total population in San Juan 8.9 10.7 12.2 15.2 18.1 23.0 27.6 31.4 20.2 14.0 24.6 19.1 27.1 20.0 13.8 Primacy I 1.5 1.9 2.2 2.7 3.2 4.0 4.4 5.3 Primacy II 43.4 48.0 51.6 54.9 59.0 65.0 68.8 71.4
San Juan metropoli tan area popula tion3 85229 119254 159050 235443 338537 508570 647979 851247 39.9 33.4 48.0 43.8 50.2 27.4 31.4 Central City popu lation 45808 64525 94478 155568 237537 368756 432377 452749 40.9 46.4 64.7 52.7 55.2 17.2 4.7 Fringe population 39421 54729 64572 79875 101000 139814 215602 398498 38.8 18.0 23.7 26.4 38.4 54.2 84.8 Percent of the San Juan population in the central city S3.7 54.1 59.4 66.1 70.2 72.5 66.7 53.2 Percent of the San Juan population in the fringe 46.3 45.9 40.6 33.9 29.8 27.5 33.3 46.8 TABLE 2-continued
Population For Each Census Year Growth Rate For Each Intercensus Period
1899- 1910- 1920- 1930- 1940- 1950- 1960- 1899 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
Ponce metropolitan area population" 55477 63444 71426 87604 105116 126810 145586 158981 14.4 12.6 22.6 20.0 20.6 14.8 9.2 Central city popu lation 27952 35005 41912 53430 65182 99492 114286 128233 25.2 19.7 27.5 22.0 52.6 14.9 12.2 Fringe population 27525 28439 29513 34174 39934 27318 31300 30748 3.3 3.8 15.8 16.9 -31.6 14.6 -1.8 Percent of the Ponce population in the central city 50.4 55.2 58.7 61.0 62.0 78.5 78.5 80.7 Percent of the Ponce population in the fringe 49.6 44.8 41.3 39.0 38.0 21.5 21.5 19.3
Mayaguez metropolitan area population0 35770 38542 41612 50270 76487 87307 50147 95857 2.8 8.0 40.0 31.3 14.1 -0.4 2.4 Central city popu lation 15187 16563 19124 37060 50376 58944 50147 68872 9.1 15.5 93.8 35.9 17.0 -14.9 37.3 Fringe population 20513 21979 22488 21210 26111 28363 33703 16985 7.1 2.3 -5.7 23.1 8.6 18.8 -49.6 Percent of the Mayaguez popula tion in the central city 42.4 43.0 46.0 64.6 65.9 67.S 59.6 80.2 Percent of the Mayaguez popula tion in the fringe 57.5 57.0 54.0 36.4 34.1 32.5 40.2 19.8 TABLE 2-continued
Population For Each Census Year Growth Rate For Each Intercensus Period
1899- 1910- 1920- 1930- 1940- 1950- 1960- 1899 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
Caguas metropolitan area population^ 19857 27160 35920 47728 53356 60132 65098 95661 36,8 32.2 32.9 11,8 12.7 8.3 46.9 Central city popu lation 5450 10354 12149 19791 24377 33759 32015 63215 90.0 17.3 62.9 23.2 38.5 -5.2 97.S Fringe population 14407 16806 23771 27937 28979 26373 33083 32446 16.7 41.4 17.5 3.7 -9,0 25.4 -1.9 Percent of the Caguas population in the central city 27.4 38.1 33.8 41.5 45.7 56.1 49.2 66.1 Percent of the Caguas population in the fringe 72.6 61.9 66.2 58.5 54.3 43.9 50.8 33.9
SOURCES: U. S. War Department. Census of Porto Rico: 1899 (Washington: Government Pringing Office, 1900), pp. 157-163; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States: Outlying Territories and Possessions. (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1932), pp. 125-131; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 07 S. Census of the Population: 1960, Vol. 1, Characteristics of the Population, part 53, Puerto Rico (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963), pp. 12-18; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population: 1970, Vol. 1, Characteristics of the Population, Part A, Number of Inhabitants, Section 2, Missouri-Wyoming, Puerto Rico and Outlying Areas (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972), pp. 19-28. aSan Juan Municipio is designated as the centrnl city for all years. bPonce central city is not adjusted for annexation that occurred between 1950 and 1960, and between 1960 and 1970. cMayaguez central city is not adjusted for annexation that occurred between 1960 and 1970. ^Caguas centtal city is not adjusted for annexation that occurred between 1960 and 1970.
05 NJ 83
for both, as it did for the percent of the population residing in metropolitan areas.
The primacy indexes constructed indicate that San Juan increased more than the other metropolitan areas for each of the intercensus periods observed. The first measure, Primacy I, is calculated as the population of the largest metropolitan area divided by the population of the second largest metropolitan area: San Juan and Ponce are the appropriate cities for each time of observation. The primacy of San
Juan increased from 1.5 in 1899 to 5.3 in 1970. Primacy II, the pop ulation in the largest metropolitan area divided by the total population of the four largest metropolitan areas, increased from 43.4 percent in
1899 to 71.4 percent in 1970. San Juan increasingly overshadowed the size of the other.three metropolitan areas.
Even though San Juan overshadowed the other cities by its size, an examination of their metropolitan growth overall and in the city and fringe revealed that Ponce, Mayaguez and Caguas were not dormant over time. While the growth rates for each metropolitan area, except San
Juan and Caguas, declined, the same may not be said for the central city and fringe growth rates.
The growth rate for the central city of San Juan peaked between
1920 to 1930 at 64.7 percent and decreased for the following periods: in the 1960 to 1970 it was 4.7 percent. While the central city did not lose population, its growth rate for thelast time period was small in comparison with that of the fringe area: the fringe growth rate began 84
to increase in the 1920 to 1930 period when it was 23.7 percent. In the 1960 to 1970 period, the fringe growth rate was 84.8 percent: it has been gaining population compared to the central city.
The San Juan area was controlled for annexation through the time of observation in this table, however, the reader is admonished that this was not possible for the three smaller cities, hence the growth rates for the city and fringe reflect annexation at some points in time more than they do growth.
For Ponce as a metropolitan area, the greatest rate of growth occurred between 1920 and 1930 when it was 22.6 percent: this remained near constant until the 1950 to 1960 period when it fell to 14.8 per cent and slowed further to 9.2 percent in the last period. The central city also had its greatest rate of growth in the 1920 to 1930 period, while the fringe growth rate increased in the 1940 to 1950 period to
30.1 percent. The negative figure in the table reflects the annexation of an area during this time that contained 14,358 people. An adjust ment for the central city at this time indicates that even without annexation it had a growth rate of 16.5 percent. This declined to 0.03 percent in the 1960 to 1970 period, adjusted for the annexation of an area containing 13,068 persons. Using this adjustment and calculating the growth rate for the fringe indicates its highest growth rate during the observation: 43.8 percent. These figures can be obtained by examining table 4, which will be discussed when growth within the city 85
and fringe is examined. The growth of the Ponce fringe in the last ten years of observation contributed more to the growth of the municipio than did that of the city. The Ponce central city was decentralizing: population in or near the fringe was increasing. It can be said that the original, pre-1950 city was losing population compared to the fringe: more specifically, current population growth was occuring at a greater distance from the city center than before.
The period of the greatest growth rate for the Mayaguez metropol itan area also occurred between 1920 and 1930: the rate was 40.0 percent. Growth of the metropolitan area declined after that time and the area actually lost population between 1950 and 1960 and growing by only 2.4 percent in the most recent period. The central city increased by 93.8 percent during this period, while the fringe lost population.
Whether or not this was an artifact of annexation, or of the city actually gaining population and the fringe actually losing population cannot be determined from the data, hence these figures must be viewed with caution. The greatest growth rate for the fringe occurred between
1930 and 1940. The central city did decentralize, or actually lose population, between 1950 and 1960, when it had a negative growth rate of 14.9: the fringe had a growth rate of 18.8 percent for this period.
Between 1960 and 1970, Mayaguez city annexed an area containing 11,163 persons: if this is adjusted for the city growth rate for this period was negative, a 3.2 percent loss. The fringe, when held constant to its 1960 area, had a growth rate of 17.1 percent. Thus, Mayaguez 86
central city began to decentralize the decade after Ponce city, and its recent areas of population growth have, like Ponce, been at a greater distance from the old central city than before.
The Caguas metropolitan area experienced its greatest growth be tween 1960 and 1970, possibly as a result of an improved highway passing through it that links San Juan with Ponce. Its growth rate declined between 1930 and 1960 from the previous rate, possibly be cause of the nearness and growth of San Juan during that time.
Central city growth appears to have been greatest between 1899 and 1910, with the greatest growth rate for the fringe occurring in the next peri od. The central city had a negative growth rate between 1950 and 1960 while the fringe gained population. The increase in the last period,
1960 to 1970, for the central city reflects annexation that cannot be adjusted for in terms of the 1960 boundaries. It appears, however, that Caguas city is also decentralizing, having an increased growth in what were formerly fringe areas.
Each of the metropolitan areas decentralized and the timing of their decentralization occurred in relationship to their size, with the possible exception of Caguas and its nearness to San Juan. The sec tion in this chapter discussing city-fringe differentiation will examine this phenomenon in relation to increasing differentiation, organizational complexity and interdependence within the metropolitan 3 area. 87
Before the above is discussed, an examination of growth within the city and fringe is undertaken. For this, municipios were used as the areal units for the San Juan metropolitan areas, and barrios were used as the areal units for the other three metropolitan areas. These units do not correspond to census tracts, nor in all cases to city boundaries, so a degree of error is introduced, but not so much that the general areas of growth cannot be detected.
Within metropolitan San Juan, composed of six municipios, inter census growth rates indicated increases in the population of each municipio for each time period observed (see table 3). These increases were not uniform through time for each municipio: San Juan municipio had the greatest growth rate between 1920 and 1930 when it grew by 64.7 percent. The growth began to decrease after this time period and was only 2.0 percent from 1960 to 1970. It is conjectured that much of the later growth in this municipio occurred in the Rio Piedras section of the municipio which was annexed to that of San Juan in 1951.^
Catano municipio, located across the bay from San Juan, grew by 88.8 percent between 1899 and 1910, then declined in increasing growth until the period between 1940 and 1950, when its population doubled. Its growth in the last period was 5.0 percent. Catano contains numerous industrial plants, and its period of greatest growth corresponds with the modernization program instituted in Puerto Rico.
Bayamon, adjacent to the south side of Catano and the west side of
Guaynabo, had its largest population increases in the times between TABLE 3
POPULATION SIZE AND GROWTH OF MUNICIPIO COMPONENTS FOR THE SAN JUAN METROPOLITAN AREA: 1899-1970
Population For Each Census Year Growth Rate For Each Intercensus Period
1899- 1910- 1920- 1930- 1940- 1950- 1960- 1899 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
San Juan Total 8S299 119254 159050 235443 338537 508570 647439 851247 39.9 33.4 48.0 43.8 50.2 27.4 31.4
Municipios Bayamon 14222 20573 24320 29542 37190 48000 72221 156192 45.4 17.6 21.5 25.9 29.1 50.5 116.3 Carolina 11965 15327 15563 18751 24046 29224 40923 107643 28.1 1.5 20.5 28.2 21.5 40.0 163.0 Catano 2737 5168 7301 8504 9719 19865 25208 26459 88.8 41.3 16.5 14.3 104.4 26.9 5.0 Guaynabo 4814 7216 9918 13502 18319 29120 39178 67042 49.9 37.4 36.1 35.7 59.0 34.5 71.1 San Juan 45808 64525 94478 155568 237537 368756 451658 463242 40.9 46.4 64.7 52 .7 55.2 22.5 2.6 Trufillo Alto 5683 6345 7470 9576 11726 13605 18251 30669 11.6 17.7 28.2 22.5 16.0 34.1 68.0
NOTE: The San Juan metropolitan area from 1899 to 1960 has been adjusted to be identical with the 1970 census definition. Catano and Guaynabo were created between 1910 and 1920 from barrios of Bayamon and Rio Piedras. Rio Piedras was annexed to the municipio of San Juan between 1950 and 1960 and is included here with the San Juan municipio. The fringe area is constituted by all muni- cipios, except San Juan, which has been defined as the city. The city and fringe totals are identical to those presented in Table 2 and are not repeated here.
SOURCES: U. S. War Department. Census of Porto Rico: 1899 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1900), pp. 157-163; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States: Outlying Territories and Possessions. (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1932), pp. 125-131; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of the Population: 1960, Vol. 1, Characteristics of the Population, part S3, Puerto Rico (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963), pp. 12-18; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population: 1970, Vol. 1, Characteristics of the Population. Part A, Number of Inhabitants, Section 2, Missouri-Wyoming, Puerto Rico and Outlying Areas (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972), pp. 19-28. 89
1950 to 1970: for the 1950 to 1960, the increase was 50.5 percent, and in the period from 1960 to 1970 it was 116.0 percent, more than double the previous population. Carolina, adjacent to San Juan's east side, had a growth rate similar to that of Bayamon: the population increase for 1960 to 1970 was 165.0 percent. Guaynabo, located on San
Juan's west side had a greater rate of increase in the 1899 to 1910 period, 49.9 percent, than it did in the three following periods.
Between 1950 and 1960 the rate increased to 59.0 percent, slowed in the next decade, and increased to 71.1 percent in the time between
1960 and 1970.
Trujillo Alto, located on the southeast side of San Juan, and the southwest side of Carolina, had growth rates that increased for all time periods but that of 1940 to 1950. In the 1960 to 1970 time, the rate was 68.0 percent, the largest growth rate for the area during the observation time.
The growth rates for the fringe areas, Bayamon, Catano, Carolina,
Guaynabo, Trujillo Alto were all greater than that of San Juan in the
1960 to 1970 period and in the period preceding that. In the 1940 to
1950 period, Catano and Guaynabo had higher growth rates than that of
San Juan, indicating decentralization. The growth of these two muni cipios at an earlier time is partially because of their position rela tive to San Juan: for Guaynabo and the ocean; for Catano and its industry. The growth rates in the more distant municipios increased after those for these two municipios. 90
Table 4 presents the population figures and growth rates for the
Ponce metropolitan area. For the barrios within the central city, using the 1970 census definition, the barrios of Priraero, Segundo,
Tercero, Cuarto, Quinto, and Sexto form the city core. These barrios all had negative growth rates for the 1950 to 1970 periods, indicating a population loss. Their greatest growth rates occurred prior to 1930, with the exception of Tercero which had a negative growth rate for all periods except those between 1930 and 1950. Portugues Urbano and
Maygueyes Urbano, which are adjacent to one another to the northwest of Segundo and Sexto, also had negative growth rates for 1960 to 1970.
Canas Urbana, Machuelo Arriba, Playa and San Anton had, in general, positive growth rates for each period of the observation. These barrios are located to the south, east, and west of the core barrios.
In contrast, the remaining city barrios, located to the northeast of the core, had negative growth rates for this period, indicating that the growth within the central city was not occurring in the core or north barrios during 1960 and 1970.
The barrios in the fringe area adjacent to the city had the greater growth rates of the fringe barrios. The growth, however, was not simultaneous on all sides of the city: Cerrillos, to the northeast of the city, had its greatest growth rate between 1920 and 1930: 154.2 percent. Vayas had a growth rate of 146.4 percent for the 1940 to 1950 period while Capitajeno, adjacent to Vayas, had a growth rate of 135.6 percent for the same period. Both barrios border on the Caribbean Sea, TABLE 4
POPULATION BY BARRIOS AND INTERCENSUS GROWTH FOR PONCE: 1899-1970
Population For Each Census Year Growth Rate For Each Intercensus Period
« 1899- 1910- 1920- 1930- 1940- 1950 1960- 1899 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
Poncc City Population Total 25972 38633 45752 59418 73656 100419 115127 128233 48.7 18.4 29.9 24.0 36.3 14.6 11.4 Primero 1592 2385 2658 3703 4846 6279 5768 5289 49.8 11.4 39.3 30.9 29.6 - 8.1 - 8.3 Segundo 5866 10637 13886 18544 26022 25941 23481 19541 81.3 30.5 33.5 40.3 - 0.3 - 9.5 -17.2 Tercero 1808 1563 1362 1138 1156 1773 1573 1338 -13.6 -12.9 -16.4 1.6 53.4 -11.3 -14.9 Cuarto 3364 3730 5585 8090 8142 7775 6332 5048 10.9 49.7 44.8 0.6 - 4.5 -18.6 -20.3 Quinto 4511 4221 4803 2512 3041 2551 1938 1533 - 6.4 13.8 -47.7 21.1 -16.1 -24.0 -20.9 Sexto 7310 8901 13271 16367 17241 14548 10672 21.8 49.1 23.3 5.3 = 15.6 -26.6 Bucanaa L 1315 603 512 901 695 887 841 547 -54.1 -15.1 76.0 -22.9 27.6 - 5.2 -35.0 Canas Urbana0 9934 17850 12947 79.7 34.2 Machuelo Abajo 1893 1840 2091 3183 5394 6545 9961 10487 - 2.8 13.6 52.2 69.5 21.3 52.2 52.8 Machuelo Arriba® 5591 Magueyes Urbano 413 750 662 81.6 -11.7 Playa 4660 5181 4717 6172 5608 12472 15040 15574 11.2 - 9.0 30.8 - 9.1 122.4 20.6 3.6 Portugues® 377 Portugues Urbano 4191 9557 7547 128.0 -21.0 Sabanetas3 7100 San Anton 963 1163 1237 1904 2385 4417 7488 12980 20.8 6.4 53.9 25T3 85.2 69.5 73.3
Fringe Population Total 22439 24811 25674 28186 31460 26391 30459 30748 10.6 3.5 9.8 11.6 -16.1 15.4 9.5 Anon 1734 1667 1984 1870 2008 2084 2100 1977 - 3.9 19.0 - 5.7 7.4 3.8 0.8 - 5.9 Canas 2680 2935 2808 4322 9188 1208 3005 8808 9.5 - 4.3 53.9 112.6 -86.8 248.7 193.1 Capitanejo 1161 1537 1471 1433 688 1621 1340 1832 32.4 - 4.3 - 2.6 -52.0 135.6 -17.3 36.7 Cerrillos 518 552 472 1200 631 805 908 1048 6.6 -14.5 154.2 -47.4 27.6 12.8 15.4 Coto Laurel 1884 1899 1953 2164 2004 3026 3907 5701 0.8 2.8 10.8 - 7.4 51.0 29.1 45.9 Guaraguao 1771 1672 1523 1587 1453 1499 1520 1396 - 5.6 - 8.9 4.2 - 8.4 3.2 1.4 - 8.2 Machuela Arriba 1413 1552 1523 1574 1407 2024 2418 2627 9.8 - 1.9 3.3 -10.6 43.8 19.5 8.6 Magueyes 1171 1583 1317 1516 1691 1654 1857 4300 35.2 -16.8 15.1 11.5 - 2.2 12.3 131.6 TABLE 4-continued
Population For Each Census Year Growth Rate For Each Intercensus Period
1899- 1910- 1920- 1930- 1940- 1950- I960- 1899 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
Maraguez 1756 1752 1643 1671 1717 1642 1647 1747 - 0.2 - 6.2 1.7 2.8 - 4.4 0.3 6.1 Marueno 1105 998 1071 931 645 712 872 724 - 9.7 7.3 -13.1 -30.7 10.4 22.5 -17.0 Montes Llanos 964 825 1241 717 1015 487 338 302 -14.4 50.4 -42.2 41.6 -52.0 -30.6 -10.6 Portugues 1050 1090 1077 1883 1287 1073 1320 1182 3.8 - 1.2 74.8 -31.7 -16.6 23.0 -10.5 Quebrada Limon 547 703 643 569 549 521 681 677 28.5 - 8.5 -11.5 - 3.5 - 541 30.7 - 0.6 Real 1440 1434 1672 1514 1612 1880 1759 1696 - 0.4 16.6 - 9.4 6.5 16.6 - 6.4 - 3.6 Sabanetas 1065 1197 1346 1834 2068 1922 2644 458 12.4 12.4 36.3 12.8 7.1 37.6 -82.7 San Patricio 963 1163 1237 1904 2385 4417 7488 12980 20.8 6.4 53.9 25.3 85.2 69.5 73.3 Tibes 1217 1036 1340 999 943 1099 939 597 -14.9 29.3 -25.4 - 5.6 16.5 -14.6 -36.4 Vayas 729 633 790 621 1530 1641 1375 -13.2 24.8 -21.4 146.4 7.2 -16.2
Total Population 48411 63444 71426 87604 105116 126810 145586 158981 31.1 12.6 22.6 20.0 20.6 14.8 9.2
SOURCE: U. S. Department of War. Census of Porto Rico: 1899. (Washington: United States Printing Office, 1900), pp. 157-163; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930. Outlying Possessions and Territories, (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1932), pp. 125-131; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1960 Census of the Population, Vol. I, Characteristics of the Population, part 53, Puerto Rico (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963), pp. 15-16; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of the Population: 1970, Vol. 1, Characteristics of the Population, part A, Number of Inhabitants, Section 2, Missouri-Wyoming, Puerto Rico and Outlying Areas (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), p. 23. aThe barrio of Bucana and parts of barrios Machuelo Arriba, Portugues and Sabanetas were added to Ponce City between 1960 and 1970. The city-fringe areas are adjusted to the 1970 census definition. ^Canas Urbano, Magueyes Urbano and Portugues Urbano were not reported separately prior to 1950.
io ts> 93
with Vayas adjacent to the east side of the city. Canas, adjacent to the west side of the city and also bordering the Caribbean, had its greatest growth rates between 1950 and 1970, when it grew by 248.7 per cent and 193.1 percent. To the northwest of the city, away from the sea, Coto Laurel, adjacent to Vayas and Capitajeno on their north sides, experienced a growth rate of 51.0 percent between 1940 and 1950. Al though its growth rate has declined since that period, it was still one of the higher growth rate barrios in the 1960 to 1970 period. Mayaguez, adjacent to the city's northwest side, had its greatest growth occur between 1960 and 1970 when it grew by 131.6 percent. Many of the re maining barrios to the north of the city at a more removed distance showed population declines through time. Early fringe growth took place south of the city, toward the Caribbean, while more recent fringe growth took place in a northerly direction from the city, near areas that were annexed to the city after 1960. Increase in growth rates did not occur for barrios more removed from the city.
The pattern of growth rates for the Ponce metropolitan area indi cates that decentralization occurred in the core of the central city and on the northern edges, and that, at the time decentralization was occurring for these areas, growth was occurring at a distance farther out from these decentralizing areas, with the most recent and greatest growth rates found in the fringe areas, a pattern of growth that
Burgess described.^ 94
The pattern of growth rates through time for the Mayaguez metro politan area is presented in table 5. Within the city, the innermost barrios, Candelaria, Carcel, Rio, Salud, Marina Septentrional and
Marina Meridional, form the city core. Rio's growth rate peaked in the 1910 to 1920 period, when it was 123.6 percent. Candelaria,
Carcel, Marina Meridional, and Salud all had their maximum growth rate during the 1920 to 1930 period. Each of these barrios, and Rio, had population declines from 1950 to 1960, with Carcel and Salud continuing to have a negative growth rate between 1960 and 1970, while the others had an increase in their growth rates.
During the 1930 to 1940 period, all barrios in the city showed population increases, with Algarrobos and Marina Setentrional, both bordering on the sea, showing the greatest rates of increase.
Miradero, to the north of the core barrios, had its greatest growth rate between 1950 and 1960 while Sabalos, to the south of the core barrios had its greatest rate of growth between 1960 and 1970. Algar robos, Miradero, and Sabalos were annexed to the city between I960 and
1970.
Guanijibo, Mayaguez Arriba, Quebrada Grande, and Sabanetas each had parts that were annexed to the city between 1960 and 1970. Taken as whole barrios for 1970, they all, except Sabanetas, showed an in crease in growth rate. Taken as parts annexed and not annexed, areas involving the largest populations and immediately adjacent to the city were the areas annexed. The city parts all had increases in their TABLE S
POPULATION BY BARRIOS AND INTERCENSUS GROWTH RATOS FOR MAYAGUEZ: 1899-1970
Population For Each Census Year Growth Rate For Each Intercensus Period
1899- 1910- 1920- 1930- 1940- 1950- 1960- 1899 1910 1920 1920 1940 1950 1960 1970 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
Mayaguez City Total 19868 22886 25671 43116 58449 65451 60786 70019 15.2 12.2 68.0 35.6 12.0 - 7.1 15.2 Algarrobos8 1054 1422 965 1003 1796 1380 2219 2764 34.9 -32.1 3.9 79.1 -23.2 60.8 24.6 Candelaria 2609 2549 1989 2606 3100 3579 3431 4052 - 2.3 -22.0 31.0 19.0 15.5 - 4.1 18.1 Carcel 4585 5442 7026 13105 16747 19983 17232 13938 18.7 29.1 86.5 27.8 19.3 -13.8 -19.1 Guanaj iboa 3513 Marina Meridonal 1611 2440 2938 5802 8122 10559 8742 10183 51.5 20.4 97.5 40.0 30.0 -17.2 16.5 Marina Septentriona 2934 2755 3019 3894 5697 8123 5802 2508 - 6.1 9.6 29.0 46.3 42.6 -28.6 -56.7 Mayaguez Arribaa 5414 Maradero8 1268 1365 1224 1644 1701 1549 3812 2452 7.6 -10.3 34.3 3.5 - 8.9 146.1 -35.7 Quebrada Grande8 585 Rio 1722 1246 2786 5705 6906 6652 5383 6603 -27.6 123.6 104.8 21.1 - 3.7 -19.1 22.7 Sabalos8 2365 3536 4358 3409 4574 3578 4608 8179 49.5 23.2 -21.8 34.2 -21.8 28.8 77.5 Sabanetas8 1649 Salud 1726 2131 1366 5943 9806 10048 9557 8179 23.5 -35.9 335.4 64.9 2.5 - 4.9 -14.4
Fringe Total 15832 15656 15941 15154 18038 21856 23064 15838 - 1.1 1.8 - 4.9 19.0 21.2 5.5 -31,3 Bateyes 1019 475 676 666 701 798 715 811 -53.4 42.3 - 1.5 5.3 13.8 -10.4 13.4 Guanajibo 1032 1078 968 809 950 1751 2392 251 4.5 -10.2 -16.4 17.4 84.3 36.6 -89.5 Juan Alonso 1041 696 747 879 792 723 730 1066 -33.1 7.3 17.7 - 9.9 - 8.7 1.0 46.0 Leguisamo 1228 859 1216 996 906 1091 946 1224 30.0 41.6 -18.1 - 9.0 20.4 -13.3 29.4 Litnon 870 1207 1345 1221 1235 1146 1059 915 38.7 11.4 - 9.2 1.1 - 7.2 - 7.6 -13.6 Malezas 462 472 443 545 604 622 274 2.2 6.1 23.0 10.8 3.0 -55.9 Mayaguez Arriba 2187 2590 2616 3157 2588 4915 5596 641 18.4 1.0 20.7 -18.0 89.9 13.9 -88.5 Montoso 988 612 671 596 852 680 427 563 -38.1 9.6 -11.2 43.0 -20.2 37.2 31.8 Naranjales 222 351 418 496 575 518 566 58.1 19.1 IB.7 15.9 - 9.9 9.3 Quebrada Grande 1035 1466 1425 1135 2052 2465 2788 3187 41.6 - 2.8 -20.3 80.8 20.1 13.1 14.3 Quemado 952 641 699 76S 1233 1536 1193 1652 -32.7 9.0 9.4 61.2 24.6 -22.3 38.5 TABLE 5-continued
Population For Each Census Year Growth Rate For Each Intercensus Period
1899- 1910- 1920- 1930- 1940- 1950- 1960- 1699 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
Rio Canas Abajo 1095 845 1018 1030 1040 939 925 897 -22.8 20.5 1.2 1.0 - 9.7 - 1.5 - 3.0 Rio Canas Arriba 1048 454 588 631 641 798 827 911 -56.7 29.5 7.3 1.6 24.5 3.6 10.2 Rio Hondo 1072 844 729 725 948 731 796 929 -21.3 -13.6 - 0.5 30.6 -22.9 8.9 16.7 Rosario 852 900 905 864 1090 688 715 2267 5.6 0.6 - 4.5 26.2 -36.9 3.9 217.1 Sabanetas 1401 1501 1480 1560 1815 2413 2815 825 7.1 - 1.4 5.4 16.3 32.9 16.7 -70.7
Total Population 35700 38542 41612 58270 76487 87307 83850 85857 2.8 8.0 40.0 31.3 14.1 - 0.4 2.4
SOURCE: U. S. Department of War. Census of Porto Rico: 1899. (Washington: U.S. Printing Office, 1900), pp. 157-63; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930. Outlying Territories and Possessions. (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), pp. 125-131; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1960 Census of the Population, Vol. I, Characteristics of the Population, part 53, Puerto Rico. (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963), p. 15; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of the Population: 1970, Vol. 1, Characteris tics of the Population, part A, Humber of Inhabitants, Section 2, Missouri-Wyoming. Puerto Rico and Outlying Areas (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), p. 22.
^ h e barrios of Algarrobos, Miradero, Sabalos and parts of barrios Guanjibo, Nayaguez Arriba, Quebrada Grande and Sabanetas were added to Mayaguez City between 1960 and 1970. Tho City-Fringe Areas are adjusted to the 1970 census definitions for 1970 only. 97
growth rates, while the fringe parts had negative growth rates with the exception of Quebrada Grande.
In the remainder of the fringe only Rosario, adjacent to Quebrada
Grande, doubled its population during any growth period: between 1960 and 1970 Rosario had a growth rate of 217.1 percent. Thus fringe growth, while present in the barrios closer to the city, occurred mostly in a strip formed by Quebrada Grande and Rosario to the southeast of the city. Many of the barrios at a further distance from the city had negative growth rates for the observation periods.
Decentralization did occur in Mayaguez, with increasing growth rates near and in the fringe concurrent with or following the declining growth in the core area. It is not as extensive as that in San Juan or
Ponce, partly because it began later and partly because Mayaguez is areally more compact than the other two areas.
Table 6 provides the data for the Caguas metropolitan area.
Caguas city, which is not delineated into barrios, had a negative growth rate for the 1950 to 1960 period. Between 1960 and 1970, parts of hitherto fringe barrios were annexed to the city: all were adjacent to the city. Unfortunately, the data does not indicate the populations of these barrios that annexed, hence no concrete statement concerning decentralization can be made. However, it is conjectured that, since
Bairoa, Canabon, Canaboncito, Tomas de Castro, and Turabo, the barrios of which parts were annexed, had, in general, negative rates of growth for the 1960 to 1970 period with the annexed population included in the TABLE 6
POPULATION BY BARRIOS AND INTERCENSUS GROWTH RATES FOR CAGUAS: 1899-1970
Population For Each Census Year Growth Rate For Each Intercensus Period
1899- 1910- 1920- 1930- 1940- 1950- 1960- 1899 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970b 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
Caguas Town 5450 10354 12149 19791 24377 33759 32015 63215 90.0 17.3 62.9 23.2 38.5 - 5.2 97.4 Municipio Total 19857 27160 35920 47728 53356 60132 65098 95661 36.8 32.2 32.9 11.8 12.7 8.3 46.9 Pringe Total 14407 16806 23771 27937 28979 26373 33083 32446 16.7 41.4 17.5 3.7 - 9.0 25.4 - 1.9 Bairoa3 2994 2873 3809 3866 2432 3420 4560 - 4.0 32.6 1.5 -37.1 40.6 33.3 Beatriz 868 990 2727 2417 2604 2713 3365 3262 14.1 175.5 -11.4 7.7 4.2 24.0 - 3.0 Borinquen 3870 2189 2724 3196 3081 3024 3274 4410 -43.4 24.4 17.3 - 3.6 - 1.8 8.3 34.7 Canabon 1309 1396 1456 1208 2443 1014 974 796 6.6 4.3 -17.0 102.2 -58.5 - 3.9 -18.3 Canaboncito 1400 1492 2208 3357 3526 3285 5727 6881 6.6 48.0 52.0 5.0 - 6.8 74.3 20.2 Rio Canas 1336 1299 2508 2409 2739 3975 4767 6250 - 2.8 93.1 - 3.9 13.7 45.1 19.9 31.1 San Antonio 887 735 770 1010 1103 974 1281 1719 -17.1 4.8 31.2 9.2 -11.7 31.5 34.2 San Salvador 1605 1594 2407 3162 3378 2863 2773 2129 - 0.7 51.0 31.4 6.8 -15.2 - 3.1 -23.2 Tomas De Castro 1575 1969 2526 3478 3187 3804 4168 3776 25.0 28.3 37.7 - 8.4 19.4 9.6 - 9.4 Turabo 1557 2148 3572 3891 3052 2286 3334 2999 38.0 66.3 8.9 -21.6 -25.1 45.8 -16.0
SOURCES: U.S. Department of War. Census of Porto Rico: 1899. (Washington: U.S. Printing Office, 1900), pp. 157-163; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930. Outlying Territories and Possessions. (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), pp. 125-1317 tJ7s. bepartment of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1960 Census of the Population, Vol. 1, Characteristics of the Population, part 53, Puerto Rico (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963), p. 13; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau"o? the Census. Census of the Population: 1970, Vol. 1. Characteristics of the Population, part A, Number of Inhabitants, Section 2, Mlssourl-Wyoming, Puerto Rico and Outlying Areas (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), p. 19, aBairoa was part of Borinquen in 1899. bCaguas town in 1970 includes parts of Barrios Bairoa, Canabon, Canaboncito, Tomas de Castro and Turabo added to Cagua town since 1960. Adjustment through time was not possible. 99
city and not in these barrios, and with a city growth rate of 97.4 percent, it is likely that the growth rate in the annexed fringe exceeded that of the city for the period involved. Some degree of de centralization is believed to have occurred. The fringe barrios Bairoa,
Borinquen, Rio Canas, and San Antonio all show increased growth rates since ]950. These barrios are to the north of the city and near the highway that connects San Juan with Ponce. Thus, while the Caguas metropolitan area exceeded that of Mayaguez in population size in 1970, less can be said concerning the degree of decentralization and the lo cation of recent growth areas than can be said for Mayaguez.
In general, each of the metropolitan areas decentralized to some extent, related to their size and time since the greatest growth occurred in the central city. Subsequent large rates of growth were removed from the central city with increasing distance.
The following section explores the emergence and distribution of variables concerned with modernization, providing a description which aids in explaining the occurrence of decentralization.
City-Fringe Differentiation
The emergence of manufacturing industry employment implies that a mobile labor force is available and that the inertia presented by dis tance has been reduced. Its existence also implies that land use specialization has occurred, in order to further minimize transportation costs. Moreover, its increasing existence implies that the agricultural 100
technology of a society is developed to a point where a surplus labor force exists to supply the employment needs of a manufacturing industry.
As a society develops, an increasing proportion of its labor force tends to be employed in manufacturing industries, until a saturation point is reached.
In table 7, the findings for the percent of the local labor force employed in agricultural activities and that for the local labor force employed in manufacturing industries are presented for the census years
1940 through 1970. An index of local specialization is also given: this indicates if the local employment configuration for the employment category being examined is above or below that of the total Puerto Rican labor force. The index is calculated as:
e. i
where e^ is the number employed in the category of interest in the local area; e. is the total labor force of the local area; E. is the number t * i employed in the category of interest for the total society; E^ is the total number employed for the total society; and i is the employment category of interest.^ Comparing the values of this index over time indicates the direction of change for the employment category: that is, did specialization increase or decrease through time?
The percent of the male labor force employed in agricultural activities for all of Puerto Rico declined from 58.0 percent in 1940 to TABLE 7
METROPOLITAN SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS: EMPLOYMENT IN AGRICULTURE AND MANUFACTURING FOR MALES: 1940-1970
1940 1950 1960 1970a
Percent Percent Percent Percent Agriculture Employed Is Employed Is Employed Is Employed Is
Puerto Rico 58.0 49.1 31.8 11.4 (222730) (210714) (132724) (50111) Metropolitan Areas 21.5 0.37 22.0 0.45 8.1 0.25 2.4 0.21 San Juan 16.7 0.29 17.9 0.36 3.8 0.12 1.3 0.11 City 5.5 0.09 9.8 0.20 1.3 0.04 0.9 0.08 Fringe 43.5 0.75 38.8 0.79 10.5 0.33 1.8 0.16 Ponce 26.0 0.45 27.3 0.56 14.2 0.45 4.7 0.41 City 6.1 0.11 10.6 0.22 4.9 0.15 1.9 0.17 Fringe 54.6 0.94 74.2 1.51 57.6 0.50 17.7 1.55 Mayaguez 23.0 0.40 24.4 0.50 16.1 0.51 5.6 0.49 City 4.7 0.08 5.8 0.12 3.5 0.11 2.3 0.20 Fringe 52.1 0.90 58.3 1.18 34.2 1.08 18.8 1.65 Caguas 40.4 0.70 12.7 0.87 25.7 0.81 5.8 0.51 City 6.4 0.11 10.8 0.22 5.4 0.17 1.7 0.15 Fringe 66.7 1.15 77.6 1.58 46.4 1.46 15.6 1.37
Manufacturing
Puerto Rico 9.7 9.5 13.6 16.6 (37285) (40949) (56504) (73042) Metropolitan Areas 10.0 1.03 12.7 1.34 17.4 1.28 16.8 1.01 San Juan 8.0 0.82 10.5 1.10 15.8 1.16 14.3 0.86 £ City 8.4 0.87 11.0 1.16 13.5 C . 99 11.9 0.72 *-*■ Fringe 7.0 0.72 9.3 0.98 21.8 1.60 16.9 1.02 TABLE 7-continued
1940 1950 1960 1970
Percent Percent Percent Percent Employed Is Employed Is Employed Is Employed Is
Ponce 13.1 1.35 18.5 1.95 23.5 1.73 25.8 1.55 City 15.0 1.55 21.1 2.22 24.9 1.83 26.1 1.57 Fringe 10.3 1.06 10.7 1.13 18.7 1.38 24.6 1.48 Mayaguez 13.1 1.35 17.0 1.79 18.0 1.32 22.7 1.37 City 16.6 1.71 20.9 2.20 19.1 1.40 24.4 1.47 Fringe 7.5 .77 10.0 1.05 16.5 1.21 16.0 0.96 Caguas 11.5 1.19 1.38 1.45 19.5 1.43 21.4 1.29 City 20.6 2.12 21.8 2.29 26.9 1.98 22.9 1.38 Fringe 4.5 0.46 5.0 0.53 12.0 0.88 17.9 1.08
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940, Puerto Rico, Bulletin No. 2 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1943), pp. 47-65, and p. 78; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of the Population: 1950, Vol. II, part 53, (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1953), pp. 47-48 and pp. 85-92; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of the Population: 1960. Vol. I, Part 53, (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963), pp. 340-342; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of the Population: 1970. General Social and Economic Characteristics: Puerto Rico. (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), p. 203 and pp. 303-310.
Data for 1970 are for males age 16 years of age and over: prior data are for males 14 years of age and over. 103
11.4 percent in 1970. The percent of the labor force in metropolitan areas employed in agricultural activities decreased from 22.0 percent in 1920 to 2.4 percent in 1970. The index of specialization for the same time periods show a decrease from 0.45 to 0.21, indicating that the metropolitan areas combined did not have agricultural specialization above the societal average at any of the observation times, and that the degree of specialization declined over time. The percent of the total labor force of Puerto Rico employed in manufacturing industries increased from 9.7 percent in 1940 to 16.6 percent in 1970, increasing as the percent employed in agricultural activities declined. For metropolitan Puerto Rico, the percent increased from 10.0 in 1940 to
16.8 in 1970 while the index of specialization increased from 1.03 to
1.34 from 1940 to 1950, then decreased to 1.01 in 1970. At each ob servation point specialization was above that for all of Puerto Rico.
The decline in the index indicates the increased manufacturing employ ment outside the metropolitan areas, and may also reflect growth in other categories of employment within the metropolitan areas.
For the San Juan metropolitan area, the largest decline in the agricultural employment category occurred between 1950 and 1960 while manufacturing employment had its largest increase as a percent of total employment. The same pattern typified both the central city and the fringe. The index of specialization for agricultural employment was less in 1970 for both the city and the fringe than it was in 1940.
Specialization in manufacturing employment for the city exceeded the 104
total Puerto Rican involvement only in 1950, while the fringe exceeded it in both 1960 and 1970 and also had a higher percentage of its labor force employed in manufacturing than did the city for both those times, indicating a change in the labor force structure, especially in the fringe.
In Ponce, the percent of the labor force employed in agricultural activities declined from 26.0 percent in 1940 to 4.7 percent in 1970, while the percent employed in manufacturing industries increased from
13.1 in 1940 to 25.8 percent in 1970. The percent of the metropolitan labor force for Ponce engaged in manufacturing was greater than that of
San Juan for each observation, indicating that Ponce had a less diver sified economy. In the central city, both the percent involved in agriculture and the index of specialization declined, while the percent employed in manufacturing increased. The index of specialization increased from 1.55 in 1940 to 2.22 in 1950, and decreased to 1.57 in
1970. The percent involved in agriculture in the fringe declined from
74.2 percent in 1950 to 17.7 percent in 1970. The index of specializa tion shows little change for this time: this is influenced by the inability to adjust for annexation through time. The percent of the fringe labor force employed in manufacturing industries increased from
10.3 percent in 1940 to 1.48 in 1970, even though annexation is not accounted for, thus this aspect of the labor force structure changed substantially. 105
In Mayaguez, while the percent of the labor force engaged in agriculture decreased for the central city and the fringe, the index of specialization increased. The index values indicate that agricultural employment in the city was below that of Puerto Rico, but in the fringe it was above that of Puerto Rico. For manufacturing employment, both the percent of the labor force so engaged and the index of specializa tion increased for both the city and the fringe from 1940 to 1950. In
1960 and 1970, the percent increased while the index declined, although specialization in manufacturing remained above the proportion in manu facturing for Puerto Rico, except for the fringe in 1970, when the index indicates less involvement than in Puerto Rico. The 1970 figures are not adjusted for annexation occurring between 1960 and 1970, possibly affecting the 1970 values.
In Caguas central city, the percent of the labor force engaged in agriculture declined from a high of 10.8 in 1940 to 1.7 percent in 1970 while in the fringe it.declined from a high of 77.6 percent in 1950 to
15.6 percent in 1970. The index of specialization for the city indicates less specialization than for all of Puerto Rico while the index for the fringe indicates more specialization than for Puerto Rico through time.
The percent of the labor force engaged in manufacturing increased through
1960 and then declined by 4.0 percent for the central city while the index of specialization indicates a higher degree of specialization than in Puerto Rico for all observations. The index declined from a high of 2.29 in 1950 to 1.38 in 1970, while both the percent and the 106
index increased for the fringe. In 1970j the fringe employment for
manufacturing was greater than the rate for Puerto Rico.
Manufacturing employment accounted for a larger share of workers
in each of the central cities through time than has agriculture, while
in the fringe areas agricultural employment involved the greater number
of workers until 1960, when manufacturing employment accounted for a
larger number of workers in the fringe than did agricultural employment,
indicating both a change in the labor force structure and the character
istics of fringe inhabitants over time. This change reflects the
industrialization of Puerto Rico undertaken by "Operation Bootstrap"
beginning in the 1940’s and the large investments made in Puerto Rico
between 1950 and 1960 by corporations: over one billion dollars was
invested between 1950 and 1960. It was this capital investment in
industries located in Puerto Rico that shifted the employment structure
from agriculture to manufacturing, just as it shifted the Puerto Rican
economic• ibase. , 8
The occupational composition of the central city and fringe for
each metropolitan area is presented in table 8. Occupational composi
tion as used here is the percent of white-collar workers for each area.
The index of specialization is also presented. The percent of the
labor force in Puerto Rico having a white-collar occupation increased
slightly from 1940 to 1970, from 38.9 percent to 40.7 percent. For metropolitan Puerto Rico, the percent fluctuated from 40.0 percent in
1940, decreasing to 39.1 percent in 1960, and then increasing to 49.4 107
TABLE 8
WHITE COLLAR COMPOSITION OF CITY AND FRINGE POPULATION FOR PUERTO RICO'S METROPOLITAN AREAS: I940-1970a
Percent of the male labor force having white collar occupations
1940 1950 1960 1970 Percent Percent Percent Percent W.C. Is W.C. Is W.C. Is W.C. Is
Puerto Rico 38.9 37.3 37.2 40.7 Metropolitan Puerto Rico 40.0 1.03 39.6 1.06 39.1 1.05 49.4 1.21
San Juan 39.3 1.01 40.3 1.08 41.7 1.12 52.0 1.28 City 41.1 1.06 42.6 1.14 45.2 1.22 56.6 1.39 Fringe 31.3 0.80 31.1 0.83 31.4 0.84 46.5 1.14 Ponce 41.3 1.06 37.3 1.00 34.0 0.91 43.5 1.07 City 42.0 1.08 38.3 1.03 40.7 1.09 46.9 1.15 Fringe 36.4 0.94 29.0 0.78 24.5 0.66 22.1 0.54 Mayaguez 40.9 1.05 38.1 1.02 31.3 0.84 40.9 1.00 City 42.0 1.08 39.3 1.07 35.7 0.96 43.9 1.08 Fringe 32.6 0.84 30.3 0.81 15.3 0.41 26.5 0.65 Caguas 41.6 1.07 40.3 1.08 35.9 0.97 39.5 0.97 City 43.7 1.12 42.7 1.14 42.9 1.15 45.6 1.12 Fringe 35.1 0.90 30.1 0.81 23.7 0.64 20.7 0.51
SOURCES: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of the Population: 1940. Puerto Rico, Bulletin #2, (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1943), pp. 48-65 and pp. 78 -79; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of the Population: 1950; Vol. II, Part 53, (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1953), p. 38, pp. 47-48, pp.85-93; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of the Population: I960. (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962), pp.133, 189, 196; U. S. Department of Conaerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of the Pouplation: 1960, Population and Housing, PHC(l)- 279, (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962), pp. 35-37; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of the Population: 1960, Population and Housing, PHC(l)- 180. (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962), pp. 60-75; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of the Population: 1970, General Social and Economic Characteristics: Puerto Rico. (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972), p. 189 and pp. 295-300.
NOTE: Annexations occurring in Ponce between 1940 and 1950, and between 1960 and 1970 could not be adjusted for through time. Annexations occurring in Mayaguez and Caguas between 1960 and 1970 could not be adjusted for through time. aWhite collar occupation is composed of employed males 14 years of age and over who had professional managerial, sales or clerical occupations. The agricultural labor force was omitted from the labor force total for each year because the heterogeneity of the category made classification of white or blue collar difficult. 108
percent in 1970. The index of specialization indicates that the occu pational composition of metropolitan Puerto Rico equalled that of
Puerto Rico until 1970, when it rose to 1.21. Metropolitan Puerto Rico has become more specialized.
San Juan, as a metropolitan area, showed a greater degree of spe cialization over time, increasing from a proportion equivalent to that of Puerto Rico in 1940 to 1.28 in 1970. The percent of the labor force population with white-collar occupations increased from 39.3 in 1940 to
52.0 in 1970. The city percent, 41.1 in 1940, increased to 56.6 in
1970 while the index of specialization rose from 1.06 to 1.39. The per cent in the fringe increased from 31.3 to 46.5, and the index of specialization rose from 0.8 in 1940 to 1.14 in 1970. The fringe occupational composition became more specialized and resembled the city in 1970 in that its specialization was greater than that of Puerto Rico.
For Ponce, Mayaguez and Caguas metropolitan areas, both the per cent having a white-collar occupation and the index of specialization remained nearly the same, except for 1960, when both declined. The percent with white-collar occupations was lower for that of San Juan, and the index of specialization indicated that this proportion equalled that of Puerto Rico through time with the exception of 1960 when it was lower.
In the central city of Ponce, the percent of white-collar workers increased from 42.0 percent in 1940 to 46.9 percent in 1970: in the fringe the percent decreased from 36.4 to 22.1. The index of 109
specialization indicated an increase in specialization from 1.08 to 1.15, while it declined in the fringe for the time of observation from 0.94 to
0.54. Part of this may be due to annexation that could not be adjusted for in the data.
For Mayaguez central city there was very little increase over time in the percent having a white-collar occupation, and a decrease occurred in 1960. The index of specialization in 1970 was equivalent to that of 1940: 1.08. Both the percent and the index declined over time for the fringe. The percent of white-collar workers in the fringe was less than that in the city at each point of time and less than that of Puerto
Rico.
For Caguas central city both the percent white-collar and the index of specialization were stable, while in the fringe they declined.
The city had a greater percent of white-collar workers than did Puerto
Rico for each point in time, while the fringe had less. Like Mayaguez and Ponce, Caguas annexed fringe areas to the city that could not be adjusted for, so it is not known how much this affects the figures.
The decline in the percent of white-collar workers that occurred in the Ponce, Mayaguez and Caguas fringes between 1950 and 1960 occurred simultaneously with industrial growth.
A modernizing society requires a literate population to perform the functions necessary for its operation. Table 9 presents the findings for literacy in Puerto Rico. The percent of the population ten years of age and older that were literate increased from 58.6 in lie TABLE 9
LITERACY COMPOSITION OF CITY AND FRINGE POPULATIONS FOR PUERTO RICO'S METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1930-1970
Percent of persons 10 years of age and over who were literate
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent ■ 7 ' 7 W.C. Is W.C. Is W.C. Is W.C. Is W.C. Is
Puerto Rico 58.6 68.5 75.3 83.0 89.4 Metropolitan Puerto Rico 67.7 1.16 75.8 1.11 81.0 1.08 87.4 1.05 93.0 1.04
San Juan 70.3 1.20 78.1 1.14 82.8 1.10 88.8 1.07 93.7 1.05 City 75.3 1.28 80.8 1.18 84.7 1.12 90.1 1.09 94.0 1.05 Fringe 59.5 1.02 70.9 1.04 77.6 1.03 85.2 1.03 93.4 1.04 Ponce 65.6 1.12 72.6 1.06 77.5 1.03 84.8 1.02 91.3 1.02 City 73.0 1.25 76.8 1.12 79.4 1.05 86.6 1.04 92.2 1.03 Fringe 53.4 0.91 65.3 0.95 70.4 0.93 77.3 0.93 87.2 0.96 Mayaguez 67.2 1.15 74.7 1.09 79.9 1.06 85.4 1.03 91.1 1.02 City 73.7 1.26 78.2 1.14 82.8 1.10 87.4 1.05 96.9 1.03 Fringe 55.4 0.95 66.7 0.97 73.4 0.97 82.0 0.99 87.3 0.98 Caguas 59.4 1.01 69.5 1.01 74.0 0.98 83.3 1.00 90.7 1.01 City 69.4 1.18 77.6 1.13 78.9 1.05 85.8 1.03 93.6 1.05 Fringe 51.3 0.88 61.8 0.90 67.1 0.89 80.6 0.97 84.9 0.95
SOURCES: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930. Outlying Territories and Possessions (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1932), pp. 155-159, p. 163; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940, Puerto Rico, Bulletins *2 and #3 (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1943), Bulletin f2, p. 45 anH~p. 73; Bulletin *3, pp. 27-31; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of the Population: 1950, Vol. II, Part 53, (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1953), p. 45 and pp. 72-77; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of the Population: 1960, Vol. 1, Part 53 (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963), p. 121 and pp. 161-178; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of the Population: 1970. General Social and Economic Characteristics Puerto Rico. (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972), p. 195-198. Ill
1930 to 89.4 in 1970. The metropolitan percent literate increased from
67.7 to 93.0. Literacy increased for all central cities and their fringes. There was little difference among the proportion literate for the central cities: all had literacy rates above that of Puerto Rico at each time. The San Juan fringe also had a literate population that exceeded the proportion literate in Puerto Rico for each time while the Ponce, Mayaguez and Caguas fringes did not.
In this respect, the San Juan metropolitan area reflects its primacy, having the need for a larger literate population and attracting it by the employment opportunities San Juan offers. The San Juan fringe is more similar to the central city than the other metropolitan fringes are to their central cities.
Table 10 presents findings for median family income for 1960 and
1970: no comparable census data exists before this time. The income figures are not adjusted for inflation, hence the more reliable com parisons are obtained by the ratio of the metropolitan unit median family income to that for all of Puerto Rico for the same time of observation.
The metropolitan area had a higher median family income in 1960 and 1970 than that of Puerto Rico, but that gap decreased between the two times of observation. This trend also describes the median incomes for the San Juan, Ponce, and Mayaguez metropolitan areas. Only the
Cagaus metropolitan area had an increase in its median income compared to that of Puerto Rico over the time observed. The San Juan TABLE 10 112 FAMILY INCOME COMPOSITION AND FRINGE POPULATION FOR PUERTO RICO'S METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1960 and 1970.
______Year______
1960a 1970
Income Is Income Is
Puerto Rico $1268 $3063 (N=445376) (N=564751)
Metropolitan Area 2043 1.61 4528 1.48
San Juan 2346 1.85 4595 1.50 City 2437 1.92 4461 1.46 Fringe 2024 1.60 5270 1.72 Ponce 1409 1.11 3272 1.07 City 1552 1.22 3565 1.16 Fringe 942 .74 2269 .74 Mayaguez 1341 1.06 3074 1.00 City 1348 1.06 3313 1.08 Fringe 1202 .95 1271 .41 Caguas 1491 1.18 3807 1.24 City 1809 1.43 4695 1.53 Fringe 1114 .88 2488 .81
SOURCE: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of the Population: 1960, Vol. I, Part 53, (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963), pp. 205-220; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. General Social and Economic Characteristics: Puerto Rico, (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972), pp. 319-326.
NOTE: Census data for the median family income is unavailable for city and fringe areas prior to 1960. Income is not adjusted to any standard year. cL Annexations for Ponce, Mayaguez and Caguas between 1960 and 1970 could not be adjusted to the 1970 areas. 113
metropolitan area had the highest income at both times, followed by
Caguas, Ponce and Mayaguez.
Median income for San Juan city declined from 1960 to 1970 rela tive to that of Puerto Rico but remained above the Puerto Rican median.
The fringe area, on the other hand, had a median income at both points in time that was greater than that of Puerto Rico. In 1970, the fringe median was greater than that of San Juan city, reflecting the decline in the agricultural activity in the fringe and its increasing residen tial nature more akin to that of a North American city than a Latin
American one.
Ponce city median income was above that of Puerto Rico at both points in time but declined relative to it in 1970. The fringe income was less than that of the city at both points in time, but did not change relative to the Puerto Rican median income, or to the city in come. The Ponce fringe is still considerably agricultural in character, moreover, annexation of some fringe areas to the city in the time between the two observations may be masking any change that occurred.
In Mayaguez city, the median family income was greater than that of Puerto Rico at both time periods and increased slightly relative to it in 1970. The fringe area had a median income below that of Puerto
Rico for both times and decreased from 1960 to 1970. Again, annexation may be masking changes, but the Mayaguez fringe is also agricultural in character. Both the city and the fringe had the lowest incomes compared to the other cities and fringes in 1970. 114
The median income for the central city of Caguas was above that of
Puerto Rico at both times and increased relative to it in 1970. The central city income in 1970 was greater than that of San Juan’s central city. The fringe, however, had a median income below that of Puerto
Rico at both times and declined relative to it in 1970. Annexation may well have influenced this decline.
Ponce, Mayaguez and Caguas had city-fringe median income distribu tions similar to that expected in a Latin American city: the median was lower in the fringe.
Fertility rate findings for cities and their fringe are presented in table 11. The fertility rate increased for Puerto Rico over the previous rate in both 1940 and 1950, when it was at its highest for the time of observation. It declined after that and was 533 per 1000 women age 15 through 44. The 1970 rate was the lowest for the time observed.
The increase in 1940 and 1950 reflects the improved health care intro duced in Puerto Rico during this time, reducing infant mortality. The
later decline reflects the use of birth control and other conditions in g a modernizing society that influence the fertility rate. This pattern is typical of modernizing countries going through the demographic transition.
In San Juan, the fertility rate declined from 539 in 1930 to 492 in
1940 and increased to 632 in 1950 and declined to 437 in 1970, reflect ing the pattern for Puerto Rico, though the fertility rate at each time was lower than that of Puerto Rico. This pattern is the same for TABLE LI 115
FERTILITY FOR CITY AND FRINGE OF PUERTO RICO'S METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1930-1970
Year 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
Puerto Rico 638 653 781 731 533
San Juan 539 492 632 590 437 City 450 426 575 538 396 Fringe 775 684 826 734 483 Ponce 441 513 750 775 550 City 366 446 694 710 509 Fringe 590 650 999 1006 742 Mayaguez 466 539 654 573 442 City 399 472 567 304 425 Fringe 613 700 867 717 533 Caguas 582 604 727 718 753 City 384 426 595 552 720 Fringe 778 813 945 911 834
SOURCES: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930. Outlying Territories and Possessions (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1932), pp. 147-154; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Sixteenth U. S. Census: 1940, Puerto Rico: Population, Bulletin #2, Characteristics of the Population (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1943), pp. 31-40 and pp. 76-77; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of the Population: 1950, Vol. II, Characteristics of the Population, Part 53, Puerto Rico. (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1953), pp. 42-45 and pp. 58-71; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of the Population: 1960, Vol. I, Characteristics of the Population, Part 53, Puerto Rico (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963), pp. 35-59 and pp. 75-91; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. General Social and Economic Characteristics, Puerto Rico (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972), pp. 279-288.
NOTES: Number of children under 5 years of age Fertility = ______(1000) Number of women age 15-44
Census data necessary for the calculations did not exist prior to 1930. 116
fertility in the central city and the fringe. The highest fertility
rate for both occurred in 1950 when it was 575 for the city and 826 for the fringe. In 1970 these rates had declined to 396 and 483 respective
ly. The fertility rates for the city never exceeded that of Puerto
Rico: the fringe rate was less than that of Puerto Rico only in 1970.
The difference between the rates for the city and the fringe declined since 1950, indicating that the fringe was losing its rural character in this respect also.
In the Ponce area, the fertility rate increased from 441 in 1930 to 775 in 1960 and declined to 550 in 1970, the 1960 and 1970 rates were greater than those of Puerto Rico. Both the city and the fringe follow this pattern, and while the rates for the city exceed those of
San Juan at all points of time, they do not exceed those of Puerto
Rico. The fringe rates exceed those of Puerto Rico at all points in time, peaking at a rate of 1006 in.1960 and declining to 742 in 1970.
The Ponce fringe has maintained its rural pattern for this phenomenon.
In the Mayaguez metropolitan area the fertility rate follows the pattern for Puerto Rico, increasing from 1930 to 1950, and declining in 1960 and 1970. The metropolitan rates never were greater than those of Puerto Rico, nor did the city rate although the fertility rate in creased from 1960 to 1970, possibly due to the nature of the population annexed. The fringe rate was greater than that of the city at each point in time, increasing from 613 in 1930 to 867 in 1950 and decreasing to 533 in 1970. The 1960 rate was less than that of Puerto Rico, while the 1970 rate was identical. 117
The Caguas metropolitan area fertility rate increased from 1930 when it was 582 to 727 in 1950, then decreased to 718 in 1960 and in creased to 753 in 1970. The city fertility rate follows this pattern at rates lower than those for the metropolitan area. The increase in
1970 may have been influenced by annexation. The 1970 rate was above that of Puerto Rico while only the 1960 metropolitan rate exceeded that of Puerto Rico. All other city and metropolitan rates were below those of Puerto Rico. The fringe fertility rate increased from 778 in 1930 to 945 in 1950 and then declined to 834 in 1970. All rates were above those of Puerto Rico.
Except for San Juan, the fringe areas of metropolitan Puerto Rico had higher fertility rates than those of Puerto Rico indicating the rural nature of the fringe areas. All fringe rates were higher than those of the city. Although the fringe pattern tended to follow that of the city and for Puerto Rico, the diffusion of information and con ditions that lead to lower fertility rates had not yet affected the fringe as they had the city, with the exception of the San Juan fringe.
The data for the median age of Puerto Rico and the metropolitan areas is presented in table 12. The pattern of increase and decrease in median age was similar to that of fertility: the median age is affected by the fertility rate and by the improvement in health care.
The median age for Puerto Rico increased from 18.3 years of age in
1930 to 21.5 years in 1970, decreasing slightly in 1940 and 1950. TABLE 12 118 MEDIAN AGE FOR CITY AND FRINGE FOR PUERTO RICO'S METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1930-1960
Area Year
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
Puerto Rico 18.3 19.2 18.4 18.5 21.5
San Juan 19.2 20.6 20.5 20.8 23.5 City 20.4 21.5 21.5 22.5 24.8 Fringe 16.9 17.8 17.7 18.1 21.8 Ponce 20.4 21.4 19.3 18.8 19.8 City 21.1 22.2 20.1 19.6 21.8 Fringe 19.4 20.1 16.9 14.7 17.2 Mayaguez 19.4 20.3 20.1 21.2 23.1 City 19.8 20.9 20.9 23.2 23.6 Fringe 18.7 18.6 17.2 16.5 20.4 Caguasa 18.2 18.9 18.3 18.8 City 20.4 21.1 20.4 22.2 Fringe 16.5 16.8 15.6 15.4
SOURCES: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930 Outlying Territories and Possessions (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1932), pp. 147-154; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Sixteenth U. S. Census: 1940, Puerto Rico: Population, Bulletin #2, Characteristics of the Popu lation (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1943), pp. 31-40 and pp. 76-77; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of the Population: 1950, Vol. II, Characteristics of the Population, Part 53, Puerto Rico (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1953), pp. 42- 45 and pp. 58-71; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of the Population: 1960, Vol. I, Characteristics of the Population, Part 53, Puerto Rico (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963), pp. 35-39 and pp. 75-91; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. General Social and Economic Characteristics, Puerto Rico (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972), pp. 279-289.
NOTE: Ponce and Mayaguez are not adjusted for annexations occurring between 1960 and 1970.
3. Census data to calculate the median age for Caguas was not available in 1970. Data was not available prior to 1930. 119
In the San Juan metropolitan area, median age follows the Puerto
Rican pattern through time, but the median age at each point is greater than that of Puerto Rico. The same pattern describes median age for the city and the fringe but the median age for the city exceeded that of Puerto Rico at each observation, while that of the fringe exceeded the Puerto Rican median only in 1970. The median age for the city in
1970 was 24.8 while in the fringe it was 21.8.
The Ponce metropolitan area median age was above that of Puerto
Rico for every year but 1970. The median age for the city of Ponce exceeded that of Puerto Rico through time, while that of the fringe was below the Puerto Rican median since 1950, reflecting its high fertility rate.
Forthe Mayaguez metropolitan area, median age increased from 19.4 years in 1930 to 23.1 years in 1970: at all observation times the median age was greater than that of Puerto Rico. The city median age was greater than that of Puerto Rico and the metropolitan area for each point in time. The fringe median age decreased from 18.7 years in 1930 to 16.5 years in 1960 and increased to 20.4 in 1970. Only the median age in 1930 exceeded that of Puerto Rico, while all years it was below that of the city. Again, the median age reflected the fertility rate.
For the Caguas metropolitan area, median age increased from 18.2 years in 1930 to 18.8 years in 1960: no data were available for 1970.
While the median age for 1960 did exceed that of Puerto Rico, the pre vious median ages did not. The Caguas city age increased from 20.4 in 120
1930 to 22.4 in 1960 after declining to 18.3 years in 1950. At each point in time the city median age was greater than that of Puerto Rico and of the metropolitan area while at no time did the fringe median age exceed that of Puerto Rico or the city. The median age for the fringe in 1930 was 16.5 and it declined to 15.4 in 1960, reflecting the fer tility rate.
For each metropolitan area the city had a greater median age than did the fringe. The fringe areas were characterized by a young popula tion: younger than that of the city.
Tables 13 and 14 present information concerning the age of housing and the percent of owner-occupied housing units for 1970. By examining when housing structures were built and their location in the metropolitan area, it is possible to describe the residential growth of the area. By examining median rent and owner-occupancy further description of the nature of the areas is made possible.
In the San Juan fringe, residential housing construction increased between 1950 and 1960, concurrent with increased industrialization, with
68.6 percent of the housing built after 1960. Construction of housing increased for the city during this period also. Both areas were growing, but the fringe was growing faster than the city after 1960 in terms of new housing construction. A majority of residences were owner-occupied in both the city and the fringe with the fringe having the higher percent,
78.5. The median rent is higher in the fringe area, similar to the pattern found in North American cities. TABLE 13 121
PERCENT OF HOUSING BY YEAR BUILT, FOR PUERTO RICO'S METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1970 ---
Year Housing Structure Built
1939 or 1940- 1950- 1960- Earlier 1949 1959 3/1/70 N
San Juan 12.9 12.6 25.2 49.3 233825 City 17.8 17.7 29.8 34.7 133338 Fringe 6.5 5.9 19.0 68.6 100487 Ponce 21.3 18.8 25.9 34.0 39418 City 22.0 19.7 26.6 31.6 32290 Fringe 18.3 14.6 22.4 44.7 7128 Mayaguez 26.8 16.0 23.0 34.1 23815 City 29.2 16.8 22.6 31.4 19285 Fringe 16.6 12.7 24.8 45.9 4530
SOURCES: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population: 1970, Population and Housing Characteristics by Census Tracts, PHC(l)-239, Mayaguez, (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972), p. Hl-10; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population: 1970, Population and Housing Characteristics by Census Tracts, PHC(l)-240, Ponce^ (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972), p. HI-14; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population: 1970, Population and Housing Characteristics by Census Tracts, PHC(1)-241, San Juan (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972), p. Hl-54. TABLE 14 122 PERCENT OF OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING AND MEDIAN RENT FOR PUERTO RICO'S METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1970
Percent of owner- Percent of Median Total No. of occupied housing rented housing Rent housing units
San Juan 63.7 36.3 $75 210669 City 52.5 47.5 74 119863 Fringe 78.5 21.5 83 90806 Ponce 64.9 35.1 50 36239 City 62.3 37.7 58 30046 Fringe 77.5 22.5 19 6193 Mayaguez 53.0 47.0 45 21657 City 48.0 52.0 45 17712 Fringe 75.2 24.8 47 3945
SOURCES: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population: 1970, Population and Housing Characteristics by Census Tracts, PHC(l)-239, Mayaguez (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972) p. HI-54; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population: 1970, Population and Housing Characteristics by Census Tracts, PHC(l)-240, Ponce (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972), p. HI-14; U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population: 1970, Population and Housing Characteristics by Census Tracts, PHC(1)-241, San Juan (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972), p. Hl-54. 123
The Mayaguez fringe was the site of a larger percent of new housing construction than the city following 1950. The proportion of housing built in the fringe following 1960 was 45.9 percent. In the central city, a larger percent of the population were renters than homeowners:
52.0 percent to 48.0 percent; while in the fringe a larger percent of the population were home owners: 75.2 percent. The median rent in the fringe was $2.00 higher than that of the city. Thus, while the propor tion of renters in the central city resembled a North American con figuration, the rent differential between the areas was not great enough to enable a conclusion.
The findings in this chapter indicate that population growth has taken place through time for Puerto Rico and its metropolitan areas, with the greatest growth rates preceding the planned industrialization of Puerto Rico but concurrent with improvements in agriculture and the exportation of cash crops. Caguas was the only metropolitan area to have its greatest growth rate occur after 1960. This was probably influenced by its location immediately to the south of San Juan and the completion of a major highway linking San Juan to Ponce and passing through Caguas. The small growth rate for Mayaguez may be partially accounted for by its relative inaccessibility by highway from the rest of the island compared with that of the other three cities.
Concurrent with the slowing growth rates, the proportion of the labor force employed in agricultural activities declined while that employed in manufacturing industries increased, indicating an increase 124
in scale. The smaller proportion of manufacturing employees in San
Juan, and the larger proportion of white-collar workers than in other
areas can be explained as a function of the employment market and the
rate of migration to San Juan. The large proportion of the labor force
that is white-collar is not unusual in a Latin American developing
society: industrial employment cannot increase rapidly enough to absorb the increasing urban labor force, hence workers who cannot find industrial employment often turn to "petty commerce and street vending" to earn a living and are consequently classified as having a sales occupation which in turn is considered white-collar."^ Rural to urban migration in Puerto Rico increased after 1940, more rapidly than did industrialization provide jobs, hence the proportion of white collar workers. Jobs created by the government, and the emphasis on tourism has helped to increase this percent.^ Since San Juan is the seat of government and the major location of the tourist industry for Puerto
Rico, and the recipient of the largest share of in-migration, the white- collar labor force is larger than in the other three cities. The three other metropolitan areas had a higher proportion of the labor force in volved in manufacturing than San Juan, indicating that they were less diversified in terms of an economic base. San Juan is also the location of many heavy industries which do not employ as large a labor force as do light industries.
Literacy, median family income, fertility and median age all reflect ed the occurrence of modernization in Puerto Rico. Literacy increased 125
over time, reflecting the societal need for a literate population in the evolving economic base. The integration of the metropolitan popu lation into the modernization process is indicated by the decline in the agricultural labor force, the increase in rural to urban migration, and the increase in median family income. The diffusion of moderniza tion and its accompanying characteristics throughout Puerto Rico is indicated by the pattern of fertility rates over time and by the in creasing median age in 1970. These changes reflect improvements implemented in health care, and, to some extent, voluntary fertility 12 behavior in the population.
Development within Puerto Rico occurred differentially, appearing first in San Juan, then diffusing to the other three metropolitan areas.
The impact of modernization on Ponce, Mayaguez, and Caguas showed that it affected them largely in order of their size. The location of Ponce in a more traditionally agricultural location may have retarded some facets of development, such as fertility, more than was the case in
Mayaguez, but Ponce had a higher rate of growth and manufacturing labor force than did Mayaguez. Caguas benefitted from its location adjacent to the San Juan area: in 1970 its population exceeded that of Mayaguez, although the industrial employment and fertility indicators lagged be hind those of Mayaguez.
A further indication of the change brought about by modernization is seen in the city-fringe differentiation of these indicators. The
San Juan fringe area was more similar to the central city than any of 126
the other fringe areas were to their central cities. Especially in terms of median income, median rent, and literacy, the San Juan fringe was more akin to a North American or developed fringe. The fringe growth over time radiated outward so that the San Juan metropolitan area contains six municipios.
Growth in the other metropolitan areas also exhibited this pat tern: the innermost areas of the central cities were declining in population while the edge of the city and fringe increased. The most recent growth reflected in the findings and by the annexations, occurred in the original fringe. While the characteristics of the fringe areas of Ponce, Mayaguez, and Caguas changed over time, the fringes were still dissimilar to those of the central cities, which changed in the direc tion that San Juan had taken earlier. The fringe areas were still more agricultural than was all of Puerto Rico, and had higher fertility rates, lower median family incomes, and a proportionately smaller literate pop ulation than did the cities, even though these characteristics changed in the predicted direction over time. The proportion of the fringe labor force employed in manufacturing industries increased over time, as did that of the central city, providing evidence of interdependence between the fringe and the city: the fringes and the central cities, while dissimilar, were not as dissimilar on some characteristics as they once had been.
Increase in scale occurred for each metropolitan area, city, and fringe over time, but at a differential rate. Development affected the 127
central cities first, roughly in order of their size, and then their fringes, in a similar order. Not only are the metropolitan areas inter dependent in the society, but the fringe areas were becoming more inter dependent with the central cities.
While it is apparent that modernization had an impact on Puerto
Rico and its metropolitan areas, and that it was accompanied by a de centralization within these central cities, the nature of these changes has only been explored in terms of gross change.
Chapter V examines residential status segregation over time for the metropolitan areas, except Caguas. Specific changes in the charac teristics of the population and the areas is explored to examine the impact of the increase of scale more closely. Footnotes for Chapter IV
Kent P. Schwirian and Ruth K. Smith. "Primacy, Modernization, and Urban Structure," Kent P. Schwirian, ed. Comparative Urban Structure: Studies in the Ecology of Cities (Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company, 1974) pp. 324-337.
^U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of the Population: 1970, vol. 1, Characteristics of the Population, part A, Number of Inhabitants, section 2, Missouri-Wyoming, Puerto Rico and Outlying Territories (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972) p. 9. 3 Leo F. Schnore. "The Timing of Metropolitan Decentralization: A Contribution to the Debate," Leo F. Schnore, ed. The Urban Scene (New York: The Free Press, 1965) p. 104. 4 U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census in the Population: 1960, vol. 1, Characteristics of the Population, part 53, Puerto Rico (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) p. 17.
^Ernest W. Burgess, Robert Park, and R. D. McKenzie. The Growth of the City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1925) pp. 18-38.
John M. Mattila and Wilbur R. Thompson. "The Measurement of the Economic Base of Metropolitan Areas," Jack P. Gibbs, ed. Urban Research Methods. (New York: Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1961) p. 333.
7Ibid., p. 337. 8 Diane Christopulaos. "Puerto Rico in the Twentieth Century," Adalberto Lopez and James Petras, eds. Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974) p. 150.
^Ibid., p. 150. 10 Richard M. Morse. "Recent Research on Latin American Urbanization: A Selective Survey with Commentary," Geral Breese, ed. The City in Newly Developing Countries: Readings in Urbanism and Urbanization (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1969) p. 484.
128 129
TJ. S. Department o£ Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population: 1970, General Social and Economic Characteristics, Puerto Rico (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972) p. 183; Morris Morley. "Dependence and Development in Puerto Rico," Adalberto Lopez and James Petras, eds. Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974) p. 243. 12 John J. Masisco, Leon F. Bouvier, and Robert H. Weller. "The Effect of Labor Force Participation on the Relation between Migration Status and Fertility in San Juan, Puerto Rico," Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 48, (January 1970): 51. CHAPTER V
STATUS GROUP RESIDENTIAL DISSIMILARITY,
SEGREGATION AND LOCATION
This chapter presents the findings regarding status group characteristics and characteristics of areas which are used to evaluate the hypotheses for this study. The first section discusses status group residential dissimilarity and segregation for each status group in 1960 and 1970 for each of the metropolitan areas and their component city and fringe divisions. The second section explores the residential location of groups and the corresponding characteristics of areas for each year and over time. Status rank and mean-mile distance rank for each group explicitly examine the centralization pattern while the analysis of covariance examines status distribution change over time for each metropolitan area.
Status Group Residential Dissimilarity and Segregation
For family income groups in the San Juan SMSA, the index of dis similarity indicates income groups to be dissimilar in their residential distribution for both 1960 and 1970. The most dissimilar groups were those with the most income difference between them while the least dissimilar pairs of groups were those in adjacent income categories. In 1960 the most dissimilar pairs were the group with a family income exceeding $15,000 with those groups having a family
130 131
income of less than $1000: the index values were: 76, 78 and 77. In
1970, these values were 63, 67 and 68 (see Table 15). The least dis
similar pairs of groups in 1960 were the pairs of income groups earning
between $1000 and $1499 and that earning between $1500 and $1999 and
the pair earning between $1500 and $1999 and $2000 and $2999 with a
value of 14. The least dissimilar pair of groups in 1970 was the group
earning between $3000 and $3999 with the group earning between $4000
and $4999: the index value was 14.
The segregation index for both years indicated that the highest
and lowest income groups were also the most segregated, or the most
dissimilar, from all other income groups in their residential distri bution. However, the highest income groups were more segregated than
the lowest income groups. For the group earning more than $15,000,
the segregation index value was 66 in 1960 and 52 in 1970, while for
the group earning less than $500, it was 30 in 1960 and 28 in 1970.
The groups in the middle range of income were less segregated: a J-
shaped curve emerges when income category rank and segregation rank are
plotted.
Table 16 presents the indexes of dissimilarity and segregation for
the San Juan metropolitan area occupational groups. For both years of
observation the groups had dissimilar residential distributions. The
degree of dissimilarity mirrors the social distance between the groups with the exception of the private household group which had a greater
degree of dissimilarity with each other group than did adjacent pairs of TABLE 15
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR FAMILY INCOME GROUPS IN THE SAN JUAN METROPOLITAN AREA: 1960 and 1970
Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal______of total N ion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1970 1960 960
25 27 20 20 19 24 30 33 39 50 63 9.0 11.7 30
22 30 24 22 24 30 37 39 47 54 67 1.8 3.3 31
17 19 23 25 25 32 38 40 47 57 68 2.8 5.3 28
17 21 14 18 18 24 31 34 42 52 64 4.3 12.4 29
19 24 16 14 15 22 28 29 37 48 62 4.0 11.0 23
28 30 25 23 17 15 24 27 35 46 62 11.6 17.1 15
42 43 41 40 33 20 15 19 26 41 58 11.2 11.0 21
52 53 51 51 45 32 16 14 19 35 56 9.1 7.9 31
58 59 58 58 52 40 26 17 17 33 55 6.9 5.3 36
63 64 64 63 59 48 37 29 21 23 48 19.9 10.1 44
70 72 72 71 68 62 55 50 45 31 29 11.0 3.3 56
76 78 78 77 75 72 68 65 62 50 31 8.4 1.6 66 TABLE 16
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS OF MALES 14 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER FOR THE SAN JUAN METROPOLITAN AREA: 1960 AND 1970
Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent Index of Occupational diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal______of Total N______Segregation Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1970 1960 1970 196(
1. Laborers 25 43 22 23 40 44 49 53 5.1 11.6 33 44
2. Service Workers 40 38 20 17 27 28 38 42 11.9 9.7 22 23
3. Private Household Service 6S 57 46 43 37 42 36 40 2.0 0.3 36 58
4. Operatives and Transportation 31 20 59 13 31 32 43 46 14.8 16.5 26 22
5. Craftsmen 36 19 60 13 26 27 36 39 14.2 20.0 18 20
6. Salesworkers 51 25 60 28 24 16 19 22 8.4 9.9 14 17
7. Clerical Workers 61 36 66 42 38 23 21 23 18.3 9.2 17 30
8. Managers 57 41 58 42 41 28 29 13 9.6 12.8 25 31
9. Professionals 70 52 61 55 51 36 30 19 15.7 10.0 30 44 134
groups. In 1960, the dissimilarity value between laborers and pro fessionals was 70: in 1970 it was 53. The dissimilarity values for private household workers and service workers in 1960 was 57: in 1970 it was 38. The least dissimilar pair of groups in 1960 and 1970 were craftsmen with operatives and transportation workers with an index value of 13 for both years.
The segregation scores for both years form a U-shaped curve dis torted by the segregation score for private household workers which was greater than the scores for either laborers or professionals in
1960 and 1970. The values were 58 and 36, respectively, while those for laborers were 44 and 30. The least segregated group at each point in time was the salesworker group with segregation values of
17 in 1960 and 14 in 1970.
The findings for educational groups in the San Juan metropolitan area are given in table 17. The dissimilarity matrix indicates resi dential dissimilarity between groups increased as the difference in educational attainment difference between them increased. The most dissimilar pair of groups for both 1960 and 1970 was the group with no education with the group which had completed college. The dissimi larity values were 69 in 1960 and 61 in 1970. The least dissimilar residential distribution for both years was between the group withone to four years of elementary school and the group with five to seven years of elementary school with values of 6 and 11 for 1960 and 1970 respectively. TABLE 17
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR EDUCATIONAL GROUPS OF PERSONS 25 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER FOR THE SAN JUAN METROPOLITAN AREA: 1960 AND 1970
Number of Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent Index of school years diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal of total N Segregation completed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1970 1960 1970 1960
1. None 12 17 30 28 42 53 61 8.1 14.5 30 30
2. 1 - 4 7 11 24 22 37 49 59 16.1 23.7 28 30
3. 5 - 7 19 6 16 15 29 42 53 14.6 16.1 18 15
4. 8 18 32 34 12 19 32 44 8.6 8.8 12 14
5. High School 1 - 3 38 35 21 12 19 34 49 12.6 10.3 13 16
6. High School 4 53 51 38 24 19 19 37 20.1 12.2 19 32
7. College 1 - 3 63 61 50 37 33 20 22 9.4 7.1 30 42
College 4 or More 69 67 58 46 45 32 20 10.5 7.3 45 51 136
The most residentially segregated group for both years is that with a college education or over. The value in 1960 was 51 and in 1970 it was 45. The group with one to three years of college was the next most segregated, followed by those with no formal education, hence a J- shaped curve describes the relationship. The least residentially segregated group for both years was that with an eighth grade education:
14 in 1960 and 12 in 1970 were the segregation values.
The indexes of dissimilarity and segregation were computed for the city and fringe areas of the San Juan metropolitan area in order to as certain if the pattern of residential distribution of status groups differed. The following paragraphs discuss these findings.
For income groups in the city of San Juan, residential dissimilar ity increased as the income difference between pairs of groups increased.
The most dissimilar pair of groups in 1960 was the group earning less than $500 and that earning over $15,000 with a dissimilarity score of
75. (See table 18). In 1970 this score was 66, exceeded only by the score of 70 between the group earning from $500 to $699 and that earning over $15,000. The least residentially dissimilar groups for both years were those in adjacent income categories.
For both 1960 and 1970, the most segregated income group was that earning in excess of $15,000 with segregation scores of 65 and 51, re spectively. The next most segregated groups were those at the bottom of the income hierarchy, while the least segregated groups were those in the middle ranges. The curve for 1960 resembles a J, while that of TABLE 18
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR FAMILY INCOME GROUPS FOR SAN JUAN CITY: 1960 AND 1970
Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal______of total N tion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1970 1960 1960
25 22 22 22 21 27 33 36 43 47 66 9.5 10.6 31
21 26 25 23 24 30 37 40 49 60 70 1.9 2.9 31
17 17 19 21 19 27 33 36 46 60 68 2.9 4.6 30
18 20 14 18 18 23 29 31 41 57 66 4.7 11.8 32
19 22 16 14 17 22 28 28 39 54 63 4.3 10.8 25
27 29 25 24 18 16 24 25 36 51 62 12.1 17.1 17
42 43 42 41 34 20 16 19 28 46 59 10.7 11.3 21
51 52 51 52 46 31 15 16 21 41 57 8.4 8.3 29
57 57 58 58 53 39 24 16 20 36 53 6.1 5.7 34
62 63 65 64 59 49 36 29 21 24 42 17.5 11.4 43
71 73 74 74 70 64 57 51 45 30 24 11.4 3.8 56
75 77 79 79 77 73 69 64 60 48 30 10.4 1.8 65
i-* 138
1970 more closely resembles a U-shape, indicating a degree of decline in segregation for the higher income groups.
Table 19 presents the residential distribution findings for occupa tional groups residing in San Juan city. Again, residential distribution dissimilarity between pairs of groups increased as the social status distance between them increased. The deviation from this pattern is, again, private household workers. The most dissimilar groups for both years were laborers and professionals with dissimilarity scores of 66 in 1960 and 64 in 1970 while the least dissimilar pair in 1960 were craftsmen and operatives with a score of 11; in 1970 the least dissimilar score was 12 between service workers and craftsmen. The dissimilarity values for private household workers with each other group exceeded the degree of dissimilarity and adjacent pairs of groups in the matrix in
1960. This was partially the case in 1970: the residential distribu tion of private household workers and laborers and service workers was more dissimilar than those of adjacent pairs, but the dissimilarity between private household workers and managers, and with professionals was less than that of adjacent pairs. Thus the residential distribution of private household workers and managers, and of the aforementioned and professionals is less dissimilar than that of managers and service workers, professionals and service workers, managers and operatives, and professionals and operatives.
The segregation indexes for the occupational groups formed a U- shaped distribution with laborers and professionals the most segregated TABLE 19
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS OF MALES 14 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER FOR SAN JUAN CITY: 1960 AND 1970
Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent Index of Occupational diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal of total N Segregation Group 123456789______1970 1960______1970 1960
1. Laborers 22 37 18 23 37 50 57 64 7.4 7.7 35 43
2. Service Workers 35 32 13 12 27 33 46 52 9.5 10.5 21 24
3. Private Household Service 62 56 33 28 25 '35 35 31 1.6 0.4 24 57
4. Operatives and Transportation 32 17 58 15 27 35 48 54 19.1 14.9 25 23
5. Craftsmen 36 19 61 11 22 31 42 49 15.8 20.0 19 21
6. Salesworkers 46 28 59 27 23 17 26 31 10.5 10.9 10 14
7. Clerical Workers 56 37 66 38 35 24 20 20 13.8 10.5 21 26
8. Managers 58 44 57 44 43 29 29 15 8.8 13.5 31 31
9. Professionals 66 55 61 54 51 37 31 17 14.6 11.5 40 42 140
groups. In 1960 the segregation value for laborers was 43, for profes sionals, 40. In 1970, the values were 35 and 40, respectively. The exception to the pattern is the private household workers which had a value of 57 in 1960, making it the most segregated group. While the segregation declined to a value of 24 in 1970, it still created a small departure from the pattern, as the value was greater than that of service workers. The least segregated group for both observations was the salesworker category with scores of 14 in 1960 and 10 in 1970 indi cating relatively little segregation of that group. Pairs of education groups in San Juan City also had increasingly dissimilar residential distributions as the degree of education difference between them in creased (see table 20). In 1960 the dissimilarity value between those with no education and those with a college education or more was 69 and in 1970 it was 66 while the dissimilarity value for those with no education and those with one to four years of elementary school was 7 in
1960 and 12 in 1970.
The index of segregation values for each time form a J-shaped curve, with the college and higher group having values of 50 and 46 for 1960 and 1970, the highest values, while the group with no education had values of 32 and 33 in 1960 and 1970, hence the J-shape. The least segregated group in 1960 was that with an eighth grade education, 13, and in 1970 it was the group with one to three years of high school, 12.
Table 21 examines dissimilarity of residential distribution between pairs of family income groups and the segregation of income groups for TABLE 20
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR EDUCATIONAL GROUPS OF PERSONS 25 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER FOR SAN JUAN CITY: 1960 AND 1970
Number of Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent Index of school years diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal of total N Segregation completed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1970 1960 1970 1960
1. None 12 18 32 28 45 59 66 7.8 12.7 33 32
2. 1 - 4 / 11 26 22 40 55 63 15.4 22.7 31 32
3. 5 - 7 19 16 18 14 32 48 57 14.6 16.0 21 16
4. 8 33 30 16 12 19 36 48 9.3 9.3 14 13
5. High School 1 - 3 37 34 20 12 22 38 50 11.7 10.9 12 14
6. High School 4 52 50 37 25 20 22 34 18.8 13.1 19 30
7. College 1 - 3 63 61 50 38 34 21 17 9.5 8.0 33 41
8. College 4 or More 69 67 58 48 46 33 21 13.0 8.5 46 50 TABLE 21
INDEXES.OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR FAMILY INCOME GROUPS FOR THE SAN JUAN FRINGE: 1960 AND 1970
Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal______of total N ion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1970 1960 960
24 33 18 18 17 20 26 29 34 42 58 8.4 14.7 25
23 35 24 21 23 28 35 36 43 47 62 1.6 4.2 30
16 22 28 30 32 36 42 43 48 55 67 2.7 6.8 20
18 23 13 18 17 23 31 34 39 47 62 3.9 13.7 22
20 28 15 13 13 20 26 29 34 43 60 3.7 11.9 16
26 30 20 21 14 13 23 26 32 41 61 11.1 17.1 13
39 41 34 35 29 20 14 16 23 35 54 11.7 10.3 21
48 50 44 44 40 32 17 11 15 29 51 9.9 6.9 32
55 56 52 53 48 39 27 20 14 28 52 7.9 4.3 39
59 60 56 56 52 42 33 26 18 19 45 22.5 6.9 42
60 62 59 58 54 52 46 46 44 33 30 10.5 2.2 48
72 74 72 70 67 66 61 65 65 59 34 6.1 0.9 62
>-• 4*. M 143
the San Juan fringe. Income groups were dissimilar in their residential
distribution for both times of observation with dissimilarity increasing
as the income difference between groups increased. The most dissimilar
pair in 1960 was the group earning between $500 and $699 and that earn
ing greater than $15,000. The value between the high and low group was
72 in 1960 and 58 in 1970. The most dissimilar value, 67, in 1970, was between the group having an income between $700 and $999 and that with
an income exceeding $15,000. The least dissimilar groups were those
adjacent in income categories.
The distribution of segregation scores for both times formed a
J-shaped curve: the highest and lowest income groups were the most
segregated, but the higher income group was segregated to a greater
degree. The values for the income group earning less than $500 were
25 in 1960 and 23 in 1970 while the values for the highest income
group, that earning $15,000 and over, were 62 in 1960 and 49 in 1970.
The least segregated group in 1960 was that with an income between
$2000 and $2999 with a score of 13, while the least segregated group in
1970 was that with an income between $5000 and $5999, also 13, thus the
distribution for 1970 shifted, moving toward more of a U-shape.
Occupational residential distribution dissimilarity and segrega
tion indexes for the San Juan fringe are presented in table 22. In
general, dissimilarity between pairs of groups increased as the status
difference between them increased, however, there were more exceptions
than only the private household workers. The most dissimilar groups in TABLE 22
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS OF MALES 14 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER FOR THE SAN JUAN FRINGE: 1960 AND 1970
Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent Index of Occupational diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal______of total N______Segregation Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1970 1960 1970 196C
1. Laborers 25 40 22 21 36 41 43 45 5.7 20.3 30 34
2. Service Workers 35 39 13 14 19 22 30 31 11.2 8.0 14 18
3. Private Household Service 65 59 41 39 38 44 36 38 1.4 0.3 37 58
4. Operatives and Transportation 31 16 60 11 21 26 33 34 18.7 19.7 18 19
5. Craftsmen 31 16 58 12 20 24 29 30 16.5 20.2 13 16
6. Salesworkers 41 18 64 26 26 17 18 19 7.7 7.6 12 21
7. Clerical Workers 55 34 68 41 39 23 20 18 17.5 6.3 18 36
8. Managers 41 3461 39 36 28 30 9 8.5 11.3 22 29
9. Professionals 61 42 63 49 47 32 25 23 12.7 6.5 24 42 145
both 1960 and 1970 were professionals and laborers with dissimilarity scores of 61 and 45. The least dissimilar groups in 1960 were crafts men and operatives with a dissimilarity of 12, while the least dissimilar pair in 1970 were managers and professionals with a dis similarity of 9. The private household occupation, when paired with other groups, was more dissimilar in residential distribution than were the pairs of occupational groups immediately adjacent for both
1960 and 1970. In 1960, both managers and professionals, when paired with service workers, had lower dissimilarity scores than adjacent pairs. This was also the case for managers and service workers in
1970. Service workers, when paired with other groups, had lower scores than were expected by the matrix pattern for both 1960 and 1970.
The segregation index values indicate that the private household occupation was the most residentially segregated group for both years while the least segregated group in 1960 was the craftsmen occupation, and in 1970, the salesworkers. Laborers had a segregation value of 34 in 1960, and 30 in 1970 while professionals had an index value of 42 in 1960 and 24 in 1970, hence laborers were less segregated than pro fessionals in 1960 and more in 1970. The curve formed by ranking the occupations1 segregation scores depicts a shallow U-shape, with a de parture created by private household workers. The curves for the two years were not fundamentally different.
In table 23, dissimilarity and segregation findings for educational groups in the San Juan fringe are presented. The dissimilarity values TABLE 23
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR EDUCATIONAL GROUPS OF PERSONS 25 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER FOR THE SAN JUAN FRINGE: 1960 AND 1970
Number of Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent Index of school years diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal of total N Segregation completed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1970 1960 1970 1960
1. None 12 16 27 28 39 46 52 8.5 18.9 27 22
2. 1 - 4 8 12 22 22 35 43 50 17.1 29.5 25 23
3. 5 - 7 15 15 14 14 26 35 44 14.6 16.2 15 12
4. 8 31 30 19 9 16 26 35 7.8 7.4 10 16
5. High School 1-3 34 32 22 12 16 28 37 13.8 8.7 11 20
6. High School 4 48 47 37 22 19 14 29 21.9 9.8 20 34
7. College 1 - 3 56 55 46 30 30 18 20 9.3 5.1 26 41
8. College 4 or More 63 62 54 38 38 24 17 7.1 4.4 35 49
4*. O' 147
increased as the difference in educational attainment between groups increased, thus the most dissimilar groups for both 1960 and 1970 are those with no education completed and those with a college education or more: the index values for both years were 63 and 52. The groups least dissimilar in residential distribution were those groups adjacent in categories of school years completed.
The segregation values exhibited a pattern similar to that of San
Juan city. The most segregated group for both years was that group which completed college or more: the index value in 1960 was 49 and in 1970 it was 35. The index values for the group with no school years completed was 22 in 1960 and 27 in 1970. The least segregated group in 1960 was the group which had completed five to seven years of elemen tary school while in 1970 it was the group which had completed eight years of school. The distribution formed by the 1960 scores forms a J- shaped curve while that formed by the 1970 scores forms more of a U- shaped curve because of the increased segregation of the lower status groups and an increased segregation in the higher status groups.
Status groups in both the city and fringe of San Juan had differen tial residential distributions such that the most dissimilar pairs of groups tended to be those with the greatest social distance between them. The dissimilarity pattern for educational groups had fewer ex ceptions than did income or occupational groups.
Rank order correlations for status groups in San Juan city and fringe for 1960 and 1970 indicated a strong association between 148
segregation distributions. For income groups the rho in 1960 was .874, and .944 in 1970: for educational groups the corresponding values were
.833 and .929, while for occupational groups the rho for both years was
.800. Not only were the associations relatively strong, but for income and education they increased in magnitude: the segregation distributions for the status groups in the city and fringe closely resembled each other. The major exception was the continued high degree of segregation for private household workers in the fringe in 1970.
The similarity of segregation for city and fringe for 1960 and 1970 is also measured by rho. The association enables an examination of dis tribution change. The rho’s indicate that segregation of income groups was less similar over time than it was for occupational and educational groups. For income group segregation, the rho's were .301 for the SMSA;
.427 for the city; and .147 for the fringe. In each case, the distribu tion moved from a J-shape to a U-shape, the lower income groups becoming more segregated. The relationships for occupational groups were moder- atly strong: for the SMSA, .833; for the city, .767; and for the fringe,
.750. For educational groups the corresponding associations were: .810 for the SMSA; .952 for the city; and .762 for the fringe. Again, the pattern in the fringe changed from a J-shaped distribution to a U-shaped distribution while that of the city remained a U-shape.
For San Juan, high and low status groups tended to be the most segregated in 1970 for both the city and fringe whereas low status groups tended to be less segregated than high status groups in the fringe in 1960. San Juan city and fringe were similar in 1970. 149
The corresponding patterns of dissimilarity and segregation are examined next: the Ponce City and fringe which are not as similar as in San Juan.
Table 24 presents the residential distribution dissimilarity and segregation for family income groups in the Ponce metropolitan area.
Income groups had dissimilar residential distributions at both times such that the most dissimilar pairs of groups were those most disparate in income while the least dissimilar‘pairs were those in adjacent in come groups. The most dissimilar pair of groups for both years was that earning between $500 and $699 with that earning over $15,000, having a dissimilarity score of 82 in 1960 and 76 in 1970. The next most dissimilar pair was that composed of the lowest and highest in come groups with dissimilarity values of 80 and 74 for 1960 and 1970 respectively. The least dissimilar pairs were those adjacent groups in the middle income categories. The most dissimilar adjacent pair of groups for 1960- and 1970 were the two highest income groups.
This is reflected in the segregation values for the groups: the most segregated income group is that with an income exceeding $15,000 with a value of 73 in 1960 and 58 in 1970. The second highest income group is also the second most segregated. The distribution formed by the segregation scores is J-shaped for both years although the lowest income group was more segregated in 1970 than it was in 1960, its score having increased from 21 to 50. The least segregated groups were those in the middle of the income category range. In 1960 the least TABLE 24
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR FAMILY INCOME GROUPS IN THE PONCE METROPOLITAN AREA: 1960 AND 1970
Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal______of total N tion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1970 1960 1960
24 22 23 19 17 25 27 37 49 65 74 14.3 20.9 21
15 25 21 22 22 26 29 40 50 65 76 3.2 7.4 28
13 14 17 20 22 24 24 34 45 61 71 3.8 9.4 19
14 23 15 18 17 21 24 35 44 60 71 6.4 15.2 15
17 27 20 13 13 18 22 31 43 58 73 5.6 10.8 16
25 34 25 20 15 13 17 27 39 56 68 1.4 14.6 14
35 44 35 30 23 13 16 22 32 48 64 11.9 7.6 22
46 54 46 42 36 26 21 17 27 46 59 7.9 4.4 33
54 64 56 51 46 37 30 20 18 36 54 5.9 2.3 42
67 72 66 63 59 50 42 32 26 22 44 15.1 5.0 55
76 80 75 74 72 64 59 52 46 25 29 7.5 1.6 66
80 82 78 78 79 74 72 71 73 50 36 4.7 0.8 73
i-* Oin 151
segregated group, that earning between $1000 and $1499, had a value of
15 while the least segregated group in 1970, that earning between $4000
and $4999, had a score of 11. The lower income groups had an increased degree of segregation over time while the higher income groups had a decreased degree so while the distribution still resembles a J, the extremes of the distribution are less discrepant in 1970 than they were in 1960.
Occupational groups in the Ponce metropolitan area also had dis similar residential distributions such that those pairs that were most dissimilar residentially were also most dissimilar in status ranking
(see table 25). The least dissimilar pairs tended to be the most similar in occupational status. The group that deviates from this pattern is the private household service occupation which had a greater degree of dissimilarity with lower status occupational groups than with higher status occupational groups for both 1960 and 1970. The most- dissimilar pair of groups both times was the laborers and the profes sionals having a dissimilarity value of 69 in 1960 and 62 in 1970.
The least dissimilar pair were the adjacent groups of craftsmen and operatives: 13 for both years.
This is reflected in the distribution of segregation scores; the labor and professional groups tended to be the most segregated both times. Private household service, however, was the most segregated group in 1960, with a value of 51, while that for laborers was 45 in
1960 and 35 in 1970. The segregation values for professionals were 44 TABLE 25
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS OF MALES 14 YEARS AND OVER FOR THE PONCE METROPOLITAN AREA: 1960 AND 1970
Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent Index of Occupational diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal______of total N______Segregation Group 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 1970 1960 1970 1961
1. Laborers 22 36 20 24 39 51 56 62 8.2 23.7 35 45
2. Service Workers 46 31 13 12 27 33 43 49 9.9 6.9 20 23
3. Private Household Service 63 47 31 29 31 37 38 37 1.7 0.5 27 51
4. Operatives and Transportation 39 23 58 13 27 33 45 50 19.8 18.1 22 19
5. Craftsmen 42 17 51 13 24 30 40 46 16.7 19.2 18 16
6. Salesworkers 53 21 51 23 15 17 24 29 8.7 8.8 13 22
7. Clerical Workers 54 34 52 30 24 21 20 20 13.1 5.5 22 26
8. Managers 49 35 51 36 30 26 23 16 8.0 11.4 31 25
9. Professionals 69 46 44 51 45 38 31 27 13.8 5.9 38 44
Ln N 3 153
and 38 for 1960 and 1970. The least segregated group in 1960 was crafts men, 16, while in 1970 it was salesworkers, 13. Professionals and laborers share a similar degree of segregation at both points in time.
Educational groups also have a dissimilar residential distribution which reflects the social distance between them (see table 26). The greatest dissimilarity occurred between the group with no years of schooling and the group with a college education or beyond: for 1960 the dissimilarity value was 69 while in 1970 it was 67. The least dis similar groups were those in adjacent educational categories: the lowest value for both years was that for the group with no school and that with one to four years of elementary school, the values being 7 and 8 for 1960 and 1970.
The segregation distribution for both years formed a J-shape, those groups having more years of schooling were more segregated than the groups with the least educational attainment. The values for the college educa tion or greater group were 58 in 1960 and 51 in 1970 while those for the group with no years of school were 22 and 25. The least segregated group in 1960 was that with five to seven years of elementary school while in
1970 it was the group with 8 years of schooling. Both groups had a segregation score of 11.
Within the city of Ponee, dissimilarity and segregation patterns for income, occupation and education status groups resembled those of the metropolitan area. TABLE 26
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR EDUCATIONAL GROUPS OF PERSONS AGE 25 YEARS AND OVER FOR THE PONCE METROPOLITAN AREA: 1960 AND 1970
Number of Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent Index of school years diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal of total N Segregation completed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1970 1960 1970 1960
1. None 8 13 28 25 43 58 67 11.5 19.7 25 22
2. 1 - 4 7 10 26 23 41 56 65 22.2 30.7 24 20
3. 5 - 7 18 14 19 16 36 52 62 18.0 17.6 18 11
4. 8 34 30 17 11 20 40 49 8.1 7.6 13 21
5. High School 1-3 33 28 16 12 24 41 50 11.1 8.0 11 18
6. High School 4 46 43 34 21 24 22 34 15.4 8.6 25 33
7. College 1 - 3 56 53 45 30 32 15 18 7.0 4.1 41 42
8. College 4 or More 69 67 61 48 51 31 25 6.7 3.7 51 58 155
The dissimilarity values for family income pairs of groups tended to increase as the income difference between groups increased. The least dissimilar pairs of groups were those in adjacent income categories
(see table 27). The highest dissimilarity value in 1960, 84, occurred between the $15,000 and over group and the group having an income between
$500 and $699. In 1970, the greatest degree of dissimilarity occurred between the same groups: it was 77. The dissimilarity value between the highest and lowest income groups for 1960 was 82 and for 1970 it was 76. The least dissimilar pair in 1960 was the group with an income of less than $500 and the group with an income between $700 and $999 while in 1970 the least dissimilar pair was the group earning between
$2000 to $2999 and that earning between $3000 and $3999: the former pair had a dissimilarity value of 8 while the latter had a value of 11.
At both times the highest two income groups were more segregated than the lowest two income groups, thus the distribution of segregation values is J-shaped even though segregation for the highest income groups had decreased in 1970. The most segregated group at each time was that earning $15,000 or more: 75 in 1960 and 57 in 1970 while the lowest in come group, that earning less than $500, had segregation values of 22 and 33 for 1960 and 1970. The lowest score, 14 in 1960, was the group with an income between $2000 to $2999 while in 1970 the least segre gated group was that with an income between $5000 to $5999 with a segregation value of 10. Those groups in the middle income ranges were less segregated than the highest and lowest groups for both times. TABLE 27
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR FAMILY INCOME GROUPS FOR PONCE CITY: 1960 AND 1970
Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal______of Total N tion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1970 1960 i960
21 25 21 17 17 23 29 39 52 68 76 14.3 19.9 22
12 25 17 16 16 20 26 36 47 64 77 2.9 6.2 29
8 10 18 20 22 23 24 34 46 61 72 3.6 8.3 19
12 20 14 14 14 17 22 31 41 58 70 5.6 15.0 16
15 22 17 12 12 19 24 33 47 64 75 5.4 11.2 15
26 33 25 21 16 11 18 25 41 58 69 13.2 14.9 14
34 41 33 29 22 11 15 22 35 52 64 11.4 8.4 19
50 56 50 46 41 28 22 15 26 46 58 8.2 4.9 36
54 64 56 51 48 38 31 18 20 39 54 6.1 2.6 42
69 73 68 65 64 53 45 32 26 23 44 15.9 5.8 57
80 82 78 77 76 70 64 54 59 26 26 8.1 1.8 68
82 84 81 82 83 76 72 72 72 48 30 5.2 0.9 75
tn 157
Dissimilarity between occupational groups tended to increase as
the status difference between them increased with the exceptions of the private household group (see table 28). The most dissimilar pair of groups for both years was professionals and laborers with values of 62 and 64 for 1960 and 19 70 while the least dissimilar pair both times were the craftsmen and operatives groups with values of 13 and
15. In 1960, the residential distribution for private household workers had a greater degree of dissimilarity with lower status groups than with higher status groups: this group was least residentially dissimilar with professionals. In 1970, private household workers remained more dissimilar with lower status groups: adjacent pairs of groups had lesser dissimilarity scores. The group with which it was least dissimilar was salesworkers, although the dissimilarity with professionals was also lower than adjacent pairs.
The segregation values also reflected the deviation of private household workers in 1960: the most residentially segregated group was the professional category, followed by private household workers, then laborers while in 1970 the most segregated group was the profes sionals followed by laborers, managers, operatives, then private household workers: private household workers were relatively less residentially segregated. The least segregated group in 1960 was the craftsmen while in 1970 it was the salesworkers: both groups are in the medium status range. A U-shaped distribution tended to describe the status and segregation relationship: the high and low status TABLE 28
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS OF MALES AGE 14 YEARS AND OVER FOR PONCE CITY: 1960 AND 1970
Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent Index of Occupational diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal______of Total N Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1970 1960 1970 196(
1. Laborers 22 37 18 23 37 50 57 64 7.4 16.4 35 35
2. Service Workers 31 32 13 12 27 33 46 52 9.5 7.7 21 21
3. Private Household Service 54 41 33 28 25 35 35 31 1.6 0.5 24 41
4. Operatives and Transportation 33 21 51 15 27 35 48 54 19.1 18.1 24 19
5. Craftsmen 30 16 45 13 22 31 42 49 15.8 21.1 19 11
6. Salesworkers 39 19 45 23 13 17 26 31 10.5 10.2 10 15
7. Clerical Workers 46 33 44 30 24 21 20 20 13.8 6.4 21 20
8. Managers 46 35 43 37 29 23 17 15 8.8 12.2 31 26
9. Professionals 62 47 40 S3 46 38 28 23 14.6 7.4 40 42 159
groups were more residentially segregated than those groups of medium
status.
In table 29, disimiliarity and segregation findings for educational
groups in the city of Ponce are presented. Again, residential dissimi
larity between groups tended to be greatest when the education difference between them was the greatest, and least dissimilar when educational
attainment was least disparate between them. The most dissimilar pair
of groups at both times was the group with no schooling and that with
a college degree or more while the least dissimilar pair was that group with no schooling with the group having one to four years of elementary
school. The group with eight years of school completed evinced more
dissimilarity than adjacent pairs of groups for both 1960 and 1970,
although the difference with adjacent comparisons was not great.
The segregation pattern resembled a J-shape distribution for both years, with the two highest education categories being the most segre
gated while the middle categories were least segregated. The segregation
scores for the college or greater group were 58 in 1960 and 54 in 1970
and the scores for the group which completed no school years were 22
and 28. The least segregated group in 1960 was that having five to
seven years of elementary school while in 1970 it was the group with
one to three years of high school. The distribution of rankings, however,
forms a U-shaped curve.
In the Ponce fringe, residential dissimilarity tended to increase
for income groups as the income difference between pairs of groups TABLE 29
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR EDUCATIONAL GROUPS OF PERSONS 25 YEARS AND OVER FOR PONCE CITY: 1960 AND 1970
Number of Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent Index of school years diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal of total N Segregation completed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1970 1960 1970 1960
1. None 7 13 29 25 43 61 71 10.6 18.0 28 22
2. 1 - 4 7 9 24 20 39 58 68 20.0 28.0 25 20
3. 5 - 7 14 11 18 15 36 55 66 17.6 17.9 20 10
4. 8 29 26 17 10 21 43 53 8.3 8.3 12 17
5. High School 1 - 3 28 23 16 11 23 45 54 11.7 8.9 10 15
6. High School 4 44 43 36 21 25 23 34 16.3 9.9 23 32
7. College 1 - 3 54 52 47 30 34 14 19 7.8 4.8 43 40
8. College 4 or More 70 68 64 48 52 30 25 7.7 4.4 54 58 161
increased (see table 30). The most dissimilar pair of groups for both
1960 and 1970 was that earning between $500 and $699 and that earning
$15,000 or more with dissimiliarty values of 82 and 84. The least dissimilar pair in 1960 was that earning between $2000 and $2900 with that earning from $4000 to $4999 while in 1970 it was between the group earning from $700 to $999 and that earning from $1000 to $1499.
Generally, adjacent income groups were less dissimilar than non- ad jacent groups. In 1960, those earning in excess of $15,000 had a dissimilarity value of 77 with those earning from $10,000 to $14,999: the corresponding value for this pair in 1970 was 35, indicating a less dissimilar residential distribution had developed. Overall, the highest income group had the greatest degree of dissimilarity with each of the remaining groups.
This is reflected in the distribution of segregation scores: the two highest income groups were segregated to a greater degree from all groups than were the lowest two income groups so that a distribution of segregation scores yielded a J-shaped curve. Higher and lower income groups, when ranked by segregation score, were more segregated than were intermediate income groups. The distribution of income group and segregation rank yielded a more U-shaped distribution for both years, although more rank reversals were found in the fringe than in the city.
Occupational groups in the fringe area also were differentially distributed residentially. Greater dissimilarity tended to occur when the status difference between two groups was great. For 1960, the TABLE 30
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR FAMILY INCOME GROUPS FOR THE PONCE FRINGE: 1960 AND 1970
Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal______of Total N tion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1970 1960 1960
23 15 23 20 16 25 21 27 35 61 79 15.2 23.4 23
17 24 29 27 28 34 28 29 45 62 84 4.7 11.2 27
18 22 13 20 23 26 27 27 39 58 78 5.0 13.0 13
25 28 13 18 24 24 28 30 43 57 81 9.6 16.0 14
33 38 21 15 15 18 17 27 37 62 73 6.2 9.7 18
29 34 17 16 10 18 18 30 35 63 76 15.1 13.8 14
44 52 37 35 27 22 20 24 24 51 68 12.9 5.0 34
31 39 22 19 14 5 19 22 30 53 72 7.7 3.0 16
47 57 47 46 40 35 27 34 17 37 62 4.8 1.4 39
51 62 50 45 36 34 27 31 22 30 52 11.3 2.3 44
55 66 55 53 50 44 35 40 28 21 35 4.2 0.7 49
73 82 71 67 65 67 71 65 81 67 77 3.2 0.4 69
»-> crv NJ TABLE 31
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS OF MALES 14 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER FOR THE PONCE FRINGE: 1960 AND 1970
Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent Index of Occupational diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal______of Total N______Segregation Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1970 1960 1970 196(
1. Laborers 22 40 22 22 42 48 47 52 12.5 44.5 30 32
2. Service Workers 31 38 12 15 30 40 32 46 11.9 4.7 17 16
3. Private Household Service 83 73 34 43 65 59 56 70 1.8 3.1 44 81
4. Operatives and Transportation 31 19 79 9 32 32 33 43 22.8 17.9 14 20
5. Craftsmen 40 20 79 12 29 26 29 40 20.9 14.0 9 25
6. Salesworkers 51 28 84 27 22 22 21 25 5.9 4.7 26 37
7. Clerical Workers 57 41 94 30 24 20 25 25 9.4 3.1 28 42
8. Managers 30 33 84 31 34 38 46 28 5.1 9.0 26 27
9. Professionals 50 30 62 27 28 33 43 36 9.7 1.8 39 35 164
most dissimilar pair of groups was clerical workers and private house
hold with a value of 94. In 1970, the most dissimilar pair were private
household workers and professionals with a value of 70. Private house
hold workers were more dissimilar with each other group than were other
pairs in 1960: they were least dissimilar with professionals. Pro
fessionals in 1960 were less dissimilar with other groups, except with
laborers, than were managers while in 1970, they were more dissimilar
with other groups than managers. Private household workers were still
more dissimilar than pairs of adjacent groups. The least dissimilar
groups in 1960 and 1970 were operatives and craftsmen, with values
of 12 and 9 respectively.
The segregation scores indicate that private household workers
were the most segregated occupation group for both times, while the
least segregated group in 1960 were service workers, and in 1970,
craftsmen. The rank order of segregation scores in 1960 indicates
that high and low status groups are not the most segregated groups: both salesworkers and clerical workers were more segregated. In 1970,
while private household workers remained the most segregated group,
professionals, and then laborers followed, hence the distribution re
sembled more the expected U-shape.
Educational groups in the Ponce fringe were also dissimilar in
their residential distribution according to the hypothesized pattern
(see table 32). The most dissimilar pair of groups for both years was
that composed of those having no education and those having a college TABLE 32
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR EDUCATIONAL GROUPS OF PERSONS 25 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER FOR THE PONCE FRINGE: 1960 AND 1970
Number of Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent Index of school years diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal of total N Segregation completed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1970 1960 1970 1960
1. None 11 18 28 28 43 45 57 15.4 25.6 20 15
2. 1 - 4 8 10 29 27 40 48 59 29.9 39.6 20 13
3. 5 - 7 21 18 22 23 33 41 52 20.8 16.9 12 12
4. 8 34 31 17 17 17 23 32 6.9 5.2 18 25
5. High School 1 - 3 31 27 14 15 28 28 39 9.4 5.3 19 22
6. High School 4 40 38 27 21 18 13 19 11.3 4.5 30 32
7. College 1 - 3 48 47 35 30 26 22 18 3.4 1.7 35 41
8. College 4 or More 49 49 33 27 28 24 16 2.9 1.1 46 42 166
education or greater while the least dissimilar pair in 1960 was that with no education and that with one to four years of elementary school and in 1970 it was that with one to four years of elementary school and that with five to seven years of elementary school. The group with one to three years of high school was less dissimilar with other groups in 1960 than was the group with 8 years of school with other groups.
This exception to the hypothesized pattern did not occur in 1970.
The three groups with the greatest years of schooling were the most segregated groups in both 1960 and 1970 while the least segre gated group each time was that with five to seven years of elementary school. The two groups with the least amount of education were the second most segregated groups. The segregation distribution forms a J-shape for each year, unlike the more U-shaped distribution of ranks found in the city.
The rank order correlations of segregation ranks for between
Ponce city and fringe for 1960 and 1970 indicate that the relationship of segregation patterns for income groups was relatively strong in both years: .801 in 1960 and .846 in 1970, while that for occupational groups was moderate: the rho's were .333 in 1960 and .517 in 1970.
The relationship for educational groups, however, decreased from 1960 to 1970, from .810 to .690, indicative of the distribution differences between the two: the city distribution in 1970 was U-shaped while that for the fringe was J-shaped. 167
The degree of similarity of segregation distributions in 1960 and
1970 was also examined by rho. The rho's for income groups in 1960 and
1970 for the SMSA, city, and fringe were less than those for the other groups: for the SMSA the rank-order correlation was .420; for the city,
.497; and for the fringe, .476. Since income was not standardized, these figures might also be indicative of more than the change in income group segregation, especially since the categories are more finely specified at the lower end of the scale than the upper. The associations for occupational groups were greater than those of income groups but less than those for educational groups: .767 for the SMSA,
.800 for the city, and .750 for the fringe. Thus the distribution found in the city both years was more similar than that found in the fringe: that in the fringe became more regular in 1970. For education al groups, the association for the SMSA was .853; for the city, .857; and for the fringe .786. Again, the greater difference existed in the fringe: the distribution changed from one appearing almost linear to a more distinct J-shape while that for the city assumed a U-shape.
Thus for Ponce, change in segregation distributions occurred: in the city the distributions became more U-shaped while those in the fringe also became more regularly patterned, tending to resemble those in the city to a degree, with the exception of education. While an increase in similarity occurred, the fringe remained differentiated from the city pattern, reflecting a residential distribution of dis similarity, but one where the segregation pattern of groups was not 168
identical with that of the city. In the city, high and low groups were the most segregated but not necessarily the low status groups.
For both city and fringe, dissimilarity in residential distribution between pairs of groups tended to increase as the social distance be tween them increased.
Dissimilar residential distributions also existed in Mayaguez for status groups, moreover, as in Ponce, the city and fringe differed in segregation pattern. Mayaguez is discussed below.
Table 33 presents the dissimilarity and segregation findings for the Mayaguez SMSA income groups. While pairs of income groups had dis similar residential distributions in both 1960 and 1970 and the degree of dissimilarity tended to increase as the income difference between groups increased the pattern for 1960 was less consistent than that in
1970. The most dissimilar pair of groups for both years was that earning between $500 and $699 with that earning $15,000 or more: 80 in
1960 and 51 in 1970 while the least dissimilar pair in 1960 was that earning from $1000 to $1499 and that earning $700 to $999: 8, while in
1970, the corresponding pair was that earning less than $500 with that earning between $500 and $699 with a value of 12. The group earning less than $500 in 1960 was less dissimilar with every other group than was the group earning between $500 and $699: this lowest income group composed 22 percent of the population in 1960, however. The highest income group was the most dissimilar with each other group for both years. TABLE 33
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR FAMILY INCOME GROUPS FOR THE MAYAGUEZ METROPOLITAN AREA: 1960 AND 1970
Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal______of total N tion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1970 1960 1960
12 20 16 22 21 29 32 35 35 44 49 10.4 22.0 16
16 22 20 23 23 30 33 34 37 48 51 2.8 6.6 21
10 19 18 24 18 23 26 29 30 39 40 4.1 10.2 14
9 20 8 17 16 21 25 29 31 37 41 7.3 16.3 13
17 24 17 15 12 17 26 24 24 33 35 6.5 11.9 11
25 31 23 21 15 15 20 21 26 35 37 18.0 13.5 18
32 37 30 30 22 18 17 18 19 26 32 11.9 7.7 22
38 43 39 38 29 26 19 19 20 30 36 9.3 3.9 29
51 56 49 50 42 38 28 34 13 24 30 7.3 2.0 43
44 49 43 43 38 36 27 25 31 16 27 14.3 3.9 35
57 58 59 61 57 58 53 53 55 33 21 4.9 1.2 55
76 80 74 76 73 71 66 65 72 50 45 3.2 0.8 72
(-* CTi to 170
Segregation scores in 1960 were greater for the highest six income groups than for the lowest: in 1970 the highest three groups and the lowest three were the most segregated, hence the distribution shifted from a J-shape to a U-shape. The most segregated group at each time was that earning over $15,000 with scores of 72 and 33 for 1960 and
1970. The least segregated group in 1960 was that earning between $1500 and $1999 while in 1970 it was that earning between $2000 and $2999.
The segregation value for each was 11.
Differential residential distribution was also characteristic for occupational groups in the Mayaguez SMSA: those pairs of groups most disparate in status tended to be also the most dissimilar and, con versely, those pairs of groups with proximate status tended to be least dissimilar (see table 34). As in San Juan and Ponce, private household workers failed to conform to this pattern, especially in 1960 when they were more dissimilar with each other group than were adjacent pairs, being least dissimilar with managers and most dissimilar with laborers:
37 and 65 respectively. In 1970, they were still more dissimilar rela tive to adjacent pairs, but less so in degree. Again, the highest dissimilarity was with laborers, 29, and the least with managers. The most dissimilar pair in 1960 was also the laborers and private household workers while in 1970 it was laborers and professionals: 44. The least dissimilar pair for both times was operatives and craftsmen with a value of 12, TABLE 34
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS OF MALES 14 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER FOR THE MAYAGUEZ METROPOLITAN AREA: 1960 AND 1970
Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent Index of Occupational diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal ______of Total N______Segregation Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1970 1960 1970 196(
1. Laborers 20 29 20 23 29 37 39 44 6.4 22.9 26 40
2. Service Workers 41 26 14 16 20 27 30 34 9.8 7.1 16 18
3. Private Household Servicw 65 53 26 27 27 30 25 28 2.1 0.8 23 46
4. Operatives and Transportation 37 16 51 12 15 22 26 30 25.6 18.2 12 14
5. Craftsmen 40 18 50 12 22 21 24 28 15.2 17.0 13 17
6. Salesworkers 49 18 43 19 18 19 25 24 9.1 9.7 14 21
7. Clerical Workers 49 27 45 27 23 25 19 16 13.5 5.6 17 25
8. Managers 39 29 37 26 29 25 24 13 6.9 12.2 20 21
9. Professionals 53 37 45 37 38 33 30 25 11.4 6.5 25 36 172
The most segregated group in 1960 was private household workers,
46, and in 1970 it was laborers, 26. The least segregated group in
1960 and 1970 were the operatives, 12 and 14, respectively. Profes sionals followed laborers in the degree of segregation. For each time, the distribution of status rank and segregation rank forms a U-shaped curve, with a deviation created by the private household workers: they are not significantly different.
Educational groups were also dissimilar in residential distribution.
Table 35 presents the findings for these groups. Dissimilarity follows the pattern hypothesized: as the difference in education between a pair of groups increases so does its dissimilarity. In 1960 there were no exceptions to this pattern: the most dissimilar pair was that with no education with that having a college education or more, 57, while the least dissimilar pair was the adjacent pair— that with no education and that with one to four years of elementary school, 9. In 1970, the latter pair again was least dissimilar, 9, and the former pair the most dissimilar, 42. However, that group with eight years of school completed was less dissimilar with each other group than were adjacent pairs.
Otherwise, dissimilarity increased as hypothesized.
For each time the distribution of segregation scores resembled a
J-shape, although not as extreme as it could be. The highest three groups were more segregated than the lowest three: 45 in 1960 and 31 in 1970 for that group with a college education or greater were the highest scores. The least segregated for both years was that having five to seven years of elementary school: 10 and 8 respectively. TABLE 35
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR EDUCATIONAL GROUPS OF PERSONS 25 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER FOR THE MAYAGUEZ METROPOLITAN AREA: 1960 AND 1970
Number of Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent Index of school years diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal of total N Segregation completed 12345678______1970 1960______1970 1960
1. None 9 14 27 20 '30 39 42 12.1 18.7 18 18
2. 1 - 4 9 9 24 17 28 37 41 22.9 31.8 18 15
3. 5 - 7 14 14 17 11 21 32 34 19.3 19.2 8 10
4. 8 24 22 15 9 13 22 27 8.0 7.0 12 12
5. High School 1 - 3 29 24 19 11 17 27 30 10.9 8.1 9 17
6. High School 4 34 30 25 13 12 16 24 15.6 7.9 19 23
7. College 1 - 3 50 45 41 30 27 21 17 4.9 3.5 27 38
8. College 4 or More 57 51 48 39 36 30 12 6.3 3.7 31 45 174
Residential dissimilarity and segregation existed within the SMSA components, but not necessarily sharing the same pattern. As in Ponce, the city and fringe had differing patterns, only in Mayaguez the dif ference was more pronounced. The city, then the fringe patterns for each status groups are explored next.
Income group dissimilarity and segregation for the city of
Mayaguez are presented in table 36. Again, as social distance, in dollars, increases between two groups, so does their dissimilarity in residential distribution. The most dissimilar pair in 1960 was that earning from $500 to $699 while in 1970 it was the former group with that earning less than $500. The least dissimilar pairs for both points in time were those adjacent in the intermediate income categories.
That group earning less than $500 tended to be less dissimilar with each other group than adjacent pairs for both years though to a greater ex tent in 1960. In 1960 this group constituted 21.6 percent of the total number of families in the city, or the largest group. In 1970, this dropped to 9.7 percent, or the fifth largest group. This composition partially explains the lower than expected dissimilarity in 1960.
The segregation pattern, or distribution of rank by status, yielded a less U-shaped distribution in 1960 than it did in 1970. For both years, the most segregated group was that with the highest income.
Segregation rank increased for the groups with lower incomes in 1970: they were relatively more segregated, hence the move toward a more U- shaped distribution. Those groups in the intermediate income TABLE 36
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR FAMILY INCOME GROUPS FOR MAYAGUEZ CITY: 1960 AND 1970
Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal______of total N ion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1970 1960 960
18 19 18 26 23 26 31 35 36 44 55 9.7 21.6 15
13 17 20 26 24 26 32 31 37 49 55 2.3 5.2 20
11 19 17 27 20 24 27 29 30 40 45 3.8 9.7 16
7 16 7 18 18 20 27 30 33 37 46 6.9 16.0 14
13 19 16 12 13 16 28 26 27 34 41 6.5 12.6 11
23 24 23 22 17 13 21 19 27 33 41 17.0 14.0 17
30 36 29 30 24 18 17 16 20 26 39 12.1 7.9 20
37 42 40 40 33 28 21 19 22 32 44 9.9 4.1 30
47 51 45 47 42 35 27 34 14 24 36 7.6 2.0 40
45 53 46 47 44 40 31 28 31 17 34 15.4 4.3 39
58 61 61 61 55 55 47 47 44 23 27 5.5 1.4 53
79 85 79 80 75 75 67 63 68 45 44 3.3 1.0 74
h - > cn 176
categories were the least segregated for each time and were joined by decreasing segregation of the higher intermediate income groups in 1970.
Thus, the segregation distribution by ranks changed from 1960 to 1970.
Table 37 presents the findings for occupational groups in Mayaguez city. The residential distribution for these groups were dissimilar.
The degree of dissimilarity increasing as the status difference between groups increased, except those values for pairs including private house hold workers. The most dissimilar pair in 1960 were private household workers and laborers, 56, while in 1970 it was laborers and professionals,
41. The least dissimilar pair in 1960 was the adjacent groups of opera tives and craftsmen, 11, while that in 1970 was professionals and managers, 12. Private household workers tended to be less residentially dissimilar with clerical workers, managers and professionals than with the remaining groups although these scores were still greater than those for adjacent pairs except in 1970 when they were less dissimilar with managers and professionals than adjacent pairs.
Private household workers were the most residentially segregated group in 1960, 41, followed by professionals, 34, and laborers, 28, while the least segregated groups were operatives and salesworkers, 12. Thus, excepting private household workers, a U-shape curve described the rela tionship between segregation and status. In 1970, the most segregated group was laborers, 27, followed by professionals and private household workers, 24, while the least segregated group was operatives, 12. Again, a U-shaped curve tended to describe the relationship: the highest and TABLE 37
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS OF MALES 14 YEARS AND OVER FOR MAYAGUEZ CITY: 1960 AND 1970
Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent Index of of Total N Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1970 1960 1970 196(
1. Laborers 27 35 23 27 26 32 40 41 5.4 12. 2 27 28
2. Service Workers 26 29 18 23 19 22 31 33 8.4 8.1 18 15
3. Private Household Service 56 48 27 31 28 27 24 25 1.9 1.0 24 41
4. Operatives and Transportation 16 18 48 13 14 18 26 29 24.8 19.7 12 12
5. Craftsmen 23 19 47 11 22 17 24 28 14.6 19.4 14 14
6. Salesworkers 28 14 40 18 19 18 25 25 9.8 12.1 15 12
7. Clerical Workers 39 28 38 26 22 24 18 17 15.1 7.1 13 19
8. Managers 41 28 31 27 28 21 18 12 7.4 12.9 19 22
9. Professionals 52 36 36 38 38 31 26 19 12.5 7.4 24 34 178
lowest occupations were the most segregated in residential distribution from other groups.
Dissimilarity and segregation scores for educational groups in
Mayaguez city are given in table 38. The residential distributions of each observation were dissimilar. In 1960 the most dissimilar pair was constituted by the highest and lowest categories while the least dissimilar pair was composed of the group with one to three years of high school and that with eight years of school. Hence, overall, as the educational difference between two groups increased, so did the dis similarity. For 1970, the most dissimilar pair was again composed of the highest and lowest categories while the least dissimilar pairs were that with one to four years of elementary school with that having five to seven years of elementary school and that having eight years of school with the group having one to three years of high school. This latter group tended to be less dissimilar than adjacent pairs but other wise greater dissimilarity occurred with greater educational disparity between groups.
The group most dissimilar in residential distribution from all other groups in 1960 was that with a college education or greater, followed by that having one to three years of college, then that with four years of high school, then by that with no education. The least segregated groups were those with five to seven years of elementary school and with eight years. Thus the segregation distribution with status for 1960 tended to be described by a J-shaped curve. In 1970 TABLE 38
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR EDUCATIONAL GROUPS OF PERSONS 25 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER FOR MAYAGUEZ CITY: 1960 AND 1970
Number of Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent Index of school years diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal______of total N______Segregation completed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1970 1960 1970 1960
1. None 11 14 22 17 28 40 43 11.0 17.2 19 20
2. 1 - 4 11 8 19 14 25 37 39 20.8 28.2 15 14
3. 5 - 7 13 12 14 9 19 30 35 18.8 20.2 8 8
4. 8 23 15 13 8 13 22 29 8.8 7.9 9 8
5. High School 1-3 27 20 17 10 16 26 31 11.4 9.2 7 14
6. High School 4 36 29 24 15 12 16 27 17.0 9.1 17 22
7. College 1-3 48 40 36 27 24 19 17 5.3 3.9 26 33
8. College 4 or More 57 52 47 39 37 29 13 6.9 4.2 31 44 180
the most segregated group was the college or more group, followed by that with one to three years of college, then that with no education.
The least segregated group was that with one to three years of high school. Although slightly different, the distribution in 1970 was similar to that in 1960: groups with the most education were more segregated than those with the least education.
Income, occupation and education status groups in Mayaguez city were dissimilar and segregated in the manner stated in the hypotheses.
Such clearly discernible patterns were not characteristic of the Maya guez fringe, discussed in the following paragraphs.
The residential distribution of income groups were dissimilar in the fringe for both 1960 and 1970 (see table 39) and, although some tendency existed for dissimilarity between groups to increase as the income difference between them increased, the tendency was not consis tent. Thus, the most dissimilar pair in 1960 was the group earning over $15,000 with that earning from $5000 to $5999 while the least dis similar pairs were that earning between $700 and $999 with that earning less than $500 and that earning $700 to $999 with the one earning between $1000 and $1499. In 1970 the most dissimilar pair was that earning between $500 and $699 and that earning between $3000 and $3999 while the least dissimilar pair was that earning between $1500 and
$1999 with that earning between $6000 to $9999.
The segregation pattern for the groups also revealed inconsistencies: the distribution for both years did not resemble a U-shape, nor, TABLE 39
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR FAMILY INCOME GROUPS FOR THE MAYAGUEZ FRINGE: 1960 AND 1970
Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal______of total N tion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1970 1960 1960
20 33 20 22 21 39 33 17 24 32 30 13.7 22.9 18
16 29 23 30 25 47 37 26 32 40 33 4.6 9.7 20
9 16 24 17 19 26 25 27 19 18 36 5.2 11.4 9
14 18 9 12 9 24 17 14 15 18 14 9.1 16.9 10
20 24 15 12 9 24 16 14 6 10 18 6.8 10.2 8
30 34 23 16 11 22 16 14 14 15 18 22.5 12.2 20
35 34 29 29 18 18 12 31 25 20 17 11.2 7.2 24
34 38 28 30 18 21 12 25 21 15 11 7.4 3.2 23
61 57 54 55 43 45 29 32 13 19 20 5.5 2.1 50
36 34 30 31 21 27 10 14 28 10 18 9.4 3.0 24
61 60 64 67 68 69 69 70 90 68 19 2.6 0.8 65
55 56 57 53 60 56 67 64 90 68 24 2.0 0.2 57
H-4 00 h-4 182
particularly, a J-shape, but rather a cascade of peaks and valleys.
The most segregated group in 1960 was that earning from $10,000 to
$14,000, followed by that earning over $15,000, then that earning from $5000 to $5999, then by that earning $3000 to $3999, followed by that earning from $6000 to $6999. The least segregated group was that earning from $700 to $999. The distribution for 1970 did not resemble that for 1960 although it, too, was depicted by peaks and valleys. In 1970 the most segregated group was that earning from
$500 to $699, followed by that earning between $3000 to $3999, then by that with an income between $700 to $999, preceding that with an income of less than $500. The least segregated group was that earning from $2000 to $2999. The highest income groups were less segregated than the lowest, in contrast to 1960. Thus the fringe income patterns were not similar for 1960 and 1970, indicating change in the residential distribution pattern.
Table 40 presents dissimilarity and segregation for occupational groups in the Mayaguez fringe. Again, there was some tendency for dissimilarity between pairs of groups to increase with increasing dis parity in occupational status, but the pattern was not consistent for either year. The most dissimilar pair in 1960 was that of clerical and private household workers while the least dissimilar pair was that of operative and service workers. Dissimilarity of professionals and laborers was exceeded by that of clerical workers and laborers and by professionals and private household workers. Private household workers TABLE 40
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR OCCUPATIONAL ______GROUPS OF MALES 14 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER FOR THE MAYAGUEZ FRINGE: 1960 AND 1970
Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent Index of Occupational diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal of Total N Segregation Group 123456789 1970 1960______1970 1960
1. Laborers 12 14 9 15 19 18 33 23 11.5 41.7 12 25
2. Service Workers 19 22 7 8 15 18 26 17 13.3 5.3 5 14
3. Private Household Service 69 77 16 21 33 28 29 30 3.0 2.9 19 68
4. Operatives and Transportation 21 9 70 12 18 21 26 18 30.0 15.6 7 9
5, Craftsmen 27 18 69 13 23 21 21 20 19.0 12.9 11 21
6. Salesworkers 34 17 64 15 11 11 37 15 6.2 5.4 15 23
7. Clerical Workers 44 25 82 23 27 26 34 10 5.9 2.8 18 31
8. Managers 23 25 55 21 26 22 40 32 4.8 11.1 27 19
9. Professionals 41 38 73 34 41 40 27 37 6.2 5.0 17 36
00 04 184
were the most dissimilar with each other group: in fact all the highest dissimilarity scores involved this -roup.Professionals with
other groups had the second highest set of scores. In 1970, the most dissimilar pair of groups was that of salesworkers and managers while the least dissimilar pair was that of service workers and operatives.
Again, private household workers had higher dissimilarity scores
although the degree of difference with adjacent pairs was not as extreme. Managers with other groups had a greater degree of dissimilarity
than did professionals.
The segregation distribution for each year is similar to that for income in that it was composed of many peaks and valleys and resembled neither a U-shape nor a J-shape. The order of segregation of groups from most to least in 1960 was private household workers, professionals,
clerical workers, laborers, salesworkers, craftsmen, managers, service workers and operatives. In 1970 the corresponding order was managers, private household workers, clerical workers, professionals, salesworkers,
laborers, craftsmen, operatives and service workers. There was some tendency of intermediate groups to be less segregated, but not enough so that the predicted distribution emerged.
Patterns of dissimilarity and segregation for education groups in the Mayaguez fringe were more consistent (see table 41). Residential dissimilarity between pairs of groups existed both years. In 1960, dissimilarity between pairs of groups increased as the education dif
ference between them increased. Thus the most dissimilar pair was that TABLE 41
INDEXES OF DISSIMILARITY AND SEGREGATION FOR EDUCATIONAL GROUPS OF PERSONS 25 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER FOR THE MAYAGUEZ FRINGE: I960 AND 1970
Number of Dissimilarity: 1970 above the Percent Index of school years diagonal, 1960 below the diagonal of total N Segregation completed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1970 1960 1970 1960
1. None 5 11 21 21 22 44 28 17.2 22.0 12 11
2. 1 - 4 5 7 16 17 17 39 24 32.6 39.9 8 10
3. 5 - 7 11 10 14 19 14 36 23 21.6 16.9 7 13
4. 8 19 17 15 10 12 33 16 4.0 4.8 12 12
5. High School 1 - 3 31 28 24 14 17 36 14 8.6 5.7 16 23
6. High School 4 27 24 22 9 13 23 14 9.1 5.3 13 19
7. College 1 - 3 52 50 52 38 34 31 23 3.0 2.6 34 47
8. College 4 or More 52 50 53 39 34 31 7 3.9 2.8 20 47 186
with no education and that with a college education or more while the least dissimilar pair was that with no education and that with one to four years of elementary school. The two groups with the most education were equally dissimilar with each other group, except each other. In 1970, dissimilarity also tended to increase with increasingly disparate education differences between groups, except that the group with one to three years of college was more dissimilar with each other group than were those with a college education or greater, hence this group which had some college education, and that with no education was the most dissimilar pair. The least dissimilar pair was identical to that in
1960.
The segregation distribution for 1960 most closely resembles a linear pattern, while that of 1970 more resembles a J-shape. In both cases, the three groups with the most education are the most segregated while the segregation ranks of the two lowest groups increased in 1970.
The least segregated group in 1960 was that with one to four years of elementary school while in 1970 it was that with five to seven years of elementary school. While this indicates some change in the distribution the difference between the two was not great.
While dissimilarity of status groups in the city of Mayaguez followed the hypothesized relationship only that for education in the fringe did. The Mayaguez fringe, like that of Ponce, did not resemble the dissimilarity of residential distribution found in the city, although groups are differentially distributed. 187
Rank-order correlations for city and fringe status groups for each year indicate the degree of association between the segregation rank ings. For income groups, the rho in 1960 was .951 and in 1970, .227; for occupation groups it was .767 in 1960 and .317 in 1970; for educa tion groups it was .548 for both 1960 and 1970. Thus, while the segre gation distributions for income were similar in 1960, they were not in
1970: the city developed a U-shaped distribution while that of the fringe resembled more two adjacent U ’s and had relatively less segre gated high income groups than the city. Occupational segregation can be similarly described. The distribution fox education groups was moderately associated and was stable both times for the city and the fringe.
The rank-order correlations for the SMSA, city and fringe describ ing the relationship between the segregation distributions for 1960 and 1970 indicate that education group patterns were most similar and those for income least similar in each of the three. The rho’s for income were .483 for the SMSA, .210 for the city; and .101 for the fringe. Corresponding rho's for occupation were .917, .817 and .633 respectively, while for education they were .929, .905 and .810.
While income overall exhibited the weakest association, all three status measures were weaker in the fringe, indicative of the changes which occurred, but, as mentioned previously, not changes that made the fringe similar to the city. 188
Coefficients of concordance (W) were calculated to determine the degree of agreement of status-segregation ranks for the SMSA, city and fringe for each year and each status measure.
For income, the agreement was moderate both years for the SMSA's, cities, and fringes. For the SMSA's the W was .708 in 1960 and de clined to .638 in 1970. For the- cities, the W in 1960 was .842, increasing to .892 in 19 70 while for the fringes the W declined from
.877 to .534, indicating that the segregation distribution in the cities became more similar while that in the fringe became more dis similar. For occupational segregation rankings the W's, while strong, declined in 1970, especially in the fringe. The W's for the SMSA's in
1960 and 1970 were .948 and .822; the corresponding W's for the cities were .944 and .822 while those for the fringes were .900 and .756.
The segregation distributions for educational groups were most similar in the cities, least in the fringes, where the W ’s were still moderately strong: moreover, the W for the cities increased in 1970 while that for the fringes declined, a pattern similar to that of income. The
W's were: for the SMSA's, .915 in 1960 and .889 in 1970; for the cities, .926 and .958; for the fringes, .788 and .786. The change in the W's for education was not as great as it was for income or occupation.
Status groups had dissimilar residential distributions in each of the three metropolitan areas and their city and fringe components, more over, the degree of dissimilarity, in general, was a function of the 189
social distance between the groups, although this tendency was not as strong in the Ponce and Mayaguez fringes. The differentiation between city and fringe status group dissimilarity did not exist in San Juan and was greatest in Mayaguez, reflecting city size and level of develop ment.
Dissimilarity did not increase over time: it decreased or remained similar for each metropolitan area and constituent parts and for each status measure, hence the hypothesis was not supported, unlike the first two.
In general, the most segregated groups tended to be those at the top and bottom of the status hierarchy. The blatant exception were private household workers, in 1960 for both city and fringe and in 1970 for the fringes. U-shaped curves described income and occupation for the most part, while a J-shaped curve was more descriptive of education in Ponce and Mayaguez. The weakest patterns were found in the Mayaguez fringe, followed by that of Ponce, indicating the differentiation between city and fringe for those two metropolitan areas. The hypothesis is supported with the exception of the Mayaguez fringe. But even there, the data indicated some tendency for high and low status groups to be more residentially segregated than groups in the intermediate status range. 190
Status Group Residential Location and Characteristics of Areas
The location of status groups in the metropolitan area with refer ence to their distance from the city center relative to each other is given by the statistic rho (see table 42). From this, conclusions can be drawn concerning the centralization pattern of status groups for
1960 and 1970.
For the San Juan SMSA in 1960, income, occupation and education groups had a negative relationship with distance: status declined as distance from the city center increased. The correlations were: -.68 for income groups; -.32 for occupation groups; and -.73 for education groups. In 1970, the pattern remained the same, but the magnitude of the correlations declined somewhat: -.26 for income, -.27 for occupation; and -.33 for education. To some extent the decrease in magnitude is a reflection of fringe development— a development which includes an influx of higher status groups. This influx, however, did not have the impact to reverse the overall relationship. (The specific fringe relationship will be discussed below.) The correlations between 1960 and 1970 are: -.20 for income; .68 for occupation; and .40 for educa tion.
Within the city, all associations for each group were strongly positive. Those for income were .89 in 1960 and .94 in 1970, while for occupation they were .88 and .86 respectively, and for education
.98 and 1.00 for 1960 and 1970. Status declines with distance within the city of San Juan, thus centralization is of a North American TABLE 42
MEAN-MILE DISTANCE RANKORDER CORRELATION WITH STATUS FOR PUERTO RICAN METROPOLITAN AREAS: 1960 AND 1970
Income Occupation Education 1960 1970 1960 1970 1960 1970
San Juan SMSA -.68 -.26 -.32 -.27 -.73 -.33
City .89 .94 .88 .86 .98 1.00
Fringe -.99 -.55 -.42 -.35 -.95 -.95
Ponce SMSA -.94 -.91 -.57 -.83 -.98 -.98
City -.46 .29 -.78 -.89 -.88 -.21
Fringe -.97 -.93 -.27 -.87 -.95 -.97
Mayaguez SMSA -.79 -.92 -.47 -.80 -.69 -.73
City -.69 -.91 -.50 -.88 -.95 -.90
Fringe -.58 -.41 -.03 .11 .31 -.17 192
pattern, as predicted by the hypothesis. The between year correlations were .84, .94 and .95.
The fringe, as indicated above however, did not have a positive relationship between status and distance. For income, the associations were -.99 and -.55 for 1960 and 1970 and the between-time association was .57. The occupation associations were -.42 and -.35 with a between- time relationship of .75. The association for education remained .95 for both years. Because the fringe population was one third of the total in 1960 and one half in 1970, this pattern influences the out come for the SMSA. That the fringe centralization pattern was negative can be explained by a number of factors, including the level of develop ment and the local topography. The San Juan fringe, except for areas contiguous to the city, still had a largely rural character with con- committant lower status. Moreover, the steep configuration of the landscape is a barrier to housing construction. Although these par ticular factors are useful in explanation, an inverse status gradient is not uncommon for the fringes of North American metropolitan areas where truck farming activities occur. Suburban development, as popularly conceived, is not distributed throughout the San Juan fringe, but is limited to the area nearest the city boundary where the higher status groups locate.
Centralization in San Juan overall exhibits a North American or developed pattern. Low status groups tended to be located near the city center while high status groups tended to be located near the periphery of the city. 193
Ponce did not share this centralization pattern, instead it had a
Latin American, or non-developed, pattern. For the SMSA, the income
associations were -.94 and -.91 in 1960and 1970with a correlation between the two times of .90. For occupation, -r.57 and -.83, with a between-time relationship of .48 described status and distance. The
relationship for education and distance was -.98 both times. The
magnitude of these relationships exceeded those of the San Juan SMSA.
The major difference is in the city of Ponce where high status groups
tended to reside near the center while the low status groups tended
to reside in the periphery. For the city income groups, the associa
tions were -.46 and .29 in 1960 and 1970, with a between relationship
of .04 while for occupation the 1960 and 1970 figures were -.78 and
-.89, and a between association of .87. The corresponding relationships
for education were -.88 and -.21 while that of the between was .52.
While an inverse status relationship still describes centralization in
1970, the trend is toward a direct relationship. Low status groups were more centralized in 1970 than 1960 for income and education.
Conversely, high status groups were more decentralized, residing at a
relatively greater distance from the city center. Occupational groups
changed in a converse fashion: low status groups became more decen
tralized.
This latter relationship is also seen in the Ponce fringe, where
the association between occupation and distance increased from -.27 to
-.87, with a between-time correlation of .45. The relationship for 194
education was -.95 in 1960 and -.97 in 1970, with a between-time correla tion of .98 while the relationship for income declined from -.97 to -.93, with a between-time association of .91. Status declined as distance increased: not unexpected, given that the Ponce fringe is as rural, if not more so, than that of San Juan.
Ponce overall, even with centralization changes for income and education groups in the city, remained Latin American in its status group location mosaic.
Mayaguez, the smallest of the Metropolitan areas, and the most re mote from San Juan, had a group location pattern wherein higher status groups became more centralized while lower status groups became more decentralized in their residential location. Instead of any incipient change toward a developed city location pattern, Mayaguez resembled a growing preindustrial city, pattern intact. Physical city growth occurred, but no radial expansion representative of that occurring in
North American cities.
For income groups in the SMSA, the association with distance was
-.79 and -.92 while for occupation it was -.47 and -.80, and for educa tion -.69 and -.73. The corresponding between time associations were
.78, .74 and .98. This overall centralization pattern is mirrored in the city where the associations for income were -.69 and -.91; for occupation -.50 and -.88; for education, -.95 and -.91. The between- time correlations were .52, .88, and .95, respectively. Again, high status groups became more centralized. 195
The pattern for the fringe differs somewhat. For income, the associations were -.58 and -.41; while for occupation, they were -.03 and .11; and for education, .31 and -.17 for 1960 and 1970. The corresponding between-time correlations were .76, -.15 and -.08.
Income status was inversely related to distance in both 1960 and 1970: high status groups tended to be located near the city boundary while low income groups tended to be distributed in the farther reaches of the fringe. Occupation status groups had an opposite pattern: from a weak inverse distribution in 1960 to a weak positive distribution in 1970. Thus, in 1970, there was a tendency for status to increase with distance. Status distribution for education groups was positively related to distance in 1960, but inversely related in 1970. To some extent, these correlation changes are an artifact of uncontrollable tract changes between 1960 and 1970 at the city boundary for which no adjustment was possible. On the other hand, most of the fringe growth occurred in a narrow ribbon southeast of the city which may account for the positive relationship of occupational status and distance in
1970. The overall relationship for the metropolitan area is one in which high status groups tended to be more centralized, with the least strong relationship being occupation status in 1960. A cautious inter pretation is that Mayaguez, while decentralizing, maintained an inverse status-distance relationship.
A closer examination of the degree of status group centralization is given by the index of centralization. For San Juan, these findings 196
are incorporated in table 43. Included also in the table are the percent of the total population composed by each status group and the ratio of the 1970 centralization index to that of 1960— this is an indicator of centralization change. The percent of the population in the city for each group of income, occupation, and education declined from 1960 to 1970 while there was an increase in centrali zation of lower status groups and the highest status groups for each of the three status indicators. The change can be seen most clearly for income groups where low status groups were more centralized in
1970 than high status groups with the exception of the group earning
$15,000 or more. Also, although that income group was more centralized in 1970 than 1960, the increase in centralization for the lower income groups was greater.
The pattern for occupational groups is less pronounced, but also indicates a tendency for lower status groups to be more centralized in 1970. The managerial group also became more centralized, but not to the degree that laborers and private household workers did - the greater degree of change was for these two groups.
Education status groups had a pattern similar to that for income groups: the low status groups became more centralized while the high status groups became less centralized, again excepting the highest status group which also became more centralized.
Overall, the centralization trend for San Juan resembles the pattern of an expanding city in a modernized setting: low status TABLE 43 197 INDEX OF CENTRALIZATION FOR SAN JUAN: 1960 AND 1970
Percent of the Total Index of in the City Centrali zation Ratio Category 1960 1970 1960 1970 1970/1960
INCOME $ 500 66.5 56.6 91.5 105.8 1.16 500-699 64.0 57.6 88.0 107.7 1.22 700-999 64.0 59.8 88.0 111.8 1.27 1000-1499 69.0 58.5 94.9 109.3 1.15 1500-1999 70.0 57.1 96.3 106.7 1.11 2000-2999 71.7 55.4 98.6 103.6 1.05 3000-3999 74.7 51.2 102.8 95.7 .93 4000-4999 77.2 49.2 106.2 92.0 .87 5000-5999 79.4 46.9 109.2 87.7 .80 6000-6999 82.3 47.2 113.2 88.2 .78 10000-14999 81.7 55.3 112.4 103.4 .92 15000+ 81.7 66.2 112.4 123.7 1.10 Total 72.7 53.5
OCCUPATION Labor 54.3 49.1 75.5 90.2 1.20 Service 76.5 57.1 106.4 105.0 .99 Private Household 76.5 67.6 106.4 124.3 1.17 Operators 5 Transp. 65.8 42.8 91.5 78.7 .86 Craftsmen 71.8 47.2 99.9 86.8 .87 Sales 77.6 58.4 107.9 107.4 .99 Clerical 81.8 56.4 113.8 103.7 .91 Managerial 75.1 60.1 104.4 110.5 1.06 Professional 83,5 63.1 116.1 116.0 .99 Total 71.9 54.4
EDUCATION None 64.4 53.9 86.9 96.4 1.11 1-4 66.6 53.4 89.9 95.5 1.06 5-7 74.0 56.1 99.9 100.4 1.01 oO 79.4 60.3 107.2 107.9 1.01 HS 1-3 79.2 51.9 106.9 92.8 .87 HS 4 80.3 52.3 108.4 93.6 .86 College 1-3 82.9 56.7 111.9 101.4 .91 College 4+ 85.4 67.9 115.2 121.5 1.06 Total 74.1 55.9 198
groups becoming more centralized, or concentrated in the city portion of the metropolitan area while higher status groups became less cen tralized within the city.
Table 44 presents the centralization findings for Ponce. Again, a tendency for low status groups to become more centralized was seen, although not to the extent that occurred in San Juan. For income groups, the lowest four became more centralized, as did the highest income group. At both points in time higher income groups were more centralized than were the lower groups. A lower percentage of low income groups resided in the city than was the case for higher income groups.
For occupation groups, labor, service, private household, and operatives became more centralized while craftsmen, salesworkers, clerical workers, managers and professionals became less centralized, especially the latter group.
This change was not as pronounced for education groups as it was for the other two, but the group with no formal education did become more centralized, although not greatly. The remaining groups became more decentralized in that they had a lesser percentage of the group total in the city area.
While the city contained the greater proportion of the population in each status group for both years, the change, particularly in occu pation, is indicative of an increased differentiation of the fringe population. While the fringe composition did not resemble that of TABLE 44 199 INDEX OF CENTRALIZATION FOR PONCE: 1960 AND 1970
Percent of the Group Total Index of in the City Centralization Ratio Category 1960 1970 1960 1970 1970/1960
INCOME $ 500 76.7 79.1 94.6 95.9 1.01 500-699 66.7 69.7 82.2 84.5 1.03 700-999 71.4 74.8 88.0 90.7 1.03 1000-1499 78.9 69.7 97.3 97.3 1.00 1500-1999 84.1 78.8 103.7 95.3 .92 2000-2999 83.9 78.7 103.4 95.4 .92 3000-3999 91.3 80.1 112.6 97.1 .86 4000-4999 88.9 82.7 109.6 100.2 .91 5000-5999 93.8 87.4 115.7 105.9 .92 6000-9999 95.4 89.1 117.6 108.0 .92 10000-14999 96.3 94.8 118.7 114.9 .97 15000+ 88.9 96.9 109.6 117.4 1.07 Total 81.1 82.5
OCCUPATION Labor 52.2 93.7 66.6 111.0 1.67 Service 85.4 93.7 108.9 111.0 1.02 Private Household 82.1 91.7 104.7 108.6 1.04 Operators § Transp. 82.1 92.6 104.7 109.7 1.05 Craftsmen 86.1 81.6 109.8 96.7 .88 Sales 91.7 82.6 117.0 97.7 .83 Clerical 91.8 80.9 117.1 95.8 .82 Managerial 83.9 81.9 107.0 97.0 .91 Professional 94.6 73.8 120.7 87.4 .72 Total 78.4 84.4
EDUCATION None 73.1 76.0 89.7 90.6 1.01 1-4 74.1 74.7 90.9 89.0 .98 5-7 83.6 80.8 102.6 96.3 .94 8 90.0 87.7 110.4 104.5 .95 HS 1-3 90.5 86.7 111.0 103.3 .93 HS 4 93.4 92.2 114.6 109.9 .96 College 1-3 96.0 95.2 117.8 113.5 .96 College 4+ 96.7 96.6 118.6 115.1 .97 Total 81.5 83.9 200
San Juan in 1970, the change was in the direction predicted for a developing city.
The figures for Mayaguez also were indicative of higher status decentralization, above and beyond the presence of unadjustable tract boundary differences which contributed to the increased proportion of the city population in 1970 (see table 45). For income groups, only the group earning between $500 and $699 were more centralized in 1970 than 1960: the remaining groups were less so, with the greatest de crease being for that group earning in excess of $15,000. While the higher income groups became more decentralized, they also remained more centralized in the city than did lower income groups.
This latter occurrence is also descriptive for high status occu pation groups. The only one of these groups to become more central ized was the laborer group. The largest decrease in centralization occurred for private household workers.
Those groups with no formal education and those with one to four years of elementary school were the only education status groups that became more centralized in 1970 than in 1960. While the remaining groups were less centralized in 1970 than they were in 1960, they had a higher degree of centralization in the city than did the lowest two groups.
Overall, the percent of higher status groups in the city of
Mayaguez increased, and while there was a tendency for these groups to decentralize, that was also the pattern for lower status groups, TABLE 45
INDEX OF CENTRALIZATION FOR MAYAGUEZ: 1960 AND 1970
Percent of the Total Index of in the City Centralization Ratio C.I Category 1960 1970 1960 1970 1970/1960
INCOME $ 500 61.5 75.7 97.8 92.9 .95 500-699 46.5 69.4 73.9 85.2 1.15 700-999 61.0 76.5 97.0 93.9 .97 1000-1499 61.4 77.2 97.6 94.7 .97 1500-1999 66.1 80.8 105.1 99.1 .94 2000-2999 62.2 76.8 98.9 94.2 .95 3000-3999 66.3 82.4 105.4 101.1 .96 4000-4999 70.0 85.4 111.3 104.8 .94 5000-5999 66.3 85.7 105.4 105.2 .99 6000-9999 75.9 87.9 120.7 107.8 .89 10000-14999 79.6 90.5 126.6 111.0 .88 15000+ 90.9 88.6 144.5 108.7 .75 Total 62.9 81.5
OCCUPATION Labor 29.6 70.3 50.2 86.5 1.72 Service 65.7 77.3 111.5 95.1 .85 Private Household 82.8 75.9 140.6 93.4 .66 Operators 6 Transp. 62.5 80.3 106.1 98.8 .93 Craftsmen 67.5 79.1 114.6 97.3 .85 Sales 74.3 88.7 126.1 109.1 .87 Clerical 77.2 92.2 131.1 113.4 .87 Managerial 64.3 88.5 109.2 108.9 .99 Professional 70.5 90.9 119.7 111.8 .93 Total 58.9 81.3
EDUCATION None 56.6 74.4 88.0 90.6 1.03 1-4 55.7 74.6 86.6 90.9 1.05 5-7 68.0 79.9 105.7 97.3 .92 8 73.8 90.9 114.8 110.7 .96 HS 1-3 76.4 85.8 118.9 104.5 .88 HS 4 76.6 89.5 119.1 109.0 .92 College 1-3 75.6 89.1 117.6 108.5 .92 College 4+ 76.8 89.1 119.4 108.5 .91 Total 64.3 82.1 202
with the exception of the lowest - not a pattern distinctive of the change that would be expected. While population growth did occur in
Mayaguez, appreciable change in pattern did not, hence it resembles a traditional Latin American city more so than did Ponce which showed change in the direction of a North American city. San Juan, on the other hand, resembled the North American configuration in 1970 the most clearly. Its fringe was the largest, proportionately, of the three, and the most differentiated and indicative of functional inter dependency with the city.
The previous findings are descriptive: in order to determine if any significant change occurred over time, parametric statistics are utilized. While the discussion to this point has examined the charac teristics of status groups and, broadly, the city and fringe areas, the following discusses the characteristics of areas specifically as to changing status composition.
The analyses of covariance performed on each of the metropolitan areas to examine the distribution of status by distance and sector between 1960 and 1970 indicate an overall negative relationship between distance and status^- existed for each metropolitan area, as a whole.
This corroborates the earlier rank-order statistic findings. The specific findings and an evaluation of change for each metropolitan area are discussed below.
Specifically, the analysis of covariance performed for San Juan indicates distance to be significant in explaining status distribution: 203
it explained 19.8 percent of the variance with a correlation between status and distance of -.37 (see table 46). While there was no change in the slope between 1960 and 1970, and sector alone did not make a significant difference, the interaction of distance, year and sector did. In the sector composed of Carolina municipio and Trujillo Alto municipio and part of San Juan, the degree of status at the CBD de clined while the decrease of status with distance also became less in
1970 than in 1960 very probably reflecting the tremendous growth rate for this area in which lower status at the center became the character istic. This change is also descriptive of that which occurred in the
Catano, Bayamon, Guaynabo and southwest section of San Juan sector although the decrease in status at the CBD and the change in slope were not as great. Status at the CBD was greater both years for this sector than it was for that of Carolina and Trujillo Alto, but it was not as. great as that which characterized the two remaining sectors, both composed by parts of San Juan along the beach front. Status at the CBD was greatest for the sector containing the resort beaches and somewhat less in the sector containing Old San Juan and El Morro. The resort beach sector contains condiminium units while the Old San Juan area contains older residences and much of symbolic value. Neither the status level at the city center, nor the status-distance relationship changed significantly from 1960 to 1970. These two sectors have, by virtue of either their historic import or location, locational value for higher status residents such that a tendency for a status change is decreased. 204
TABLE 46
ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE F-VALUES FOR SAN JUAN, PONCE AND MAYAGUEZ
San Juan Ponce Mayaguez Source of Variation
Distance 30.85* 13.10* 15.02*
Year .03 .02 .12
Sector 2.31 2.28 1.41
Interaction 5.51* 2.31 2.49
R2 .198 .199 .248
* p .05 205
While distance alone was significant in explaining the variation in
status distribution, time and sector were not. However, the inter
action between the three was significant in explaining the variation in
two of the sectors, indicating that differential change in status dis tribution did occur in San Juan.
Ponce was less dynamic: distance alone was significant in explain ing the distribution of status. The correlation of status with distance was -.45 and distance explained 19.9 percent of the variance in status distribution.
Again, in the metropolitan area as a whole, status declined with increasing distance. Neither time nor sector produced any significant differences, nor did the interaction of the three variables have any appreciable impact.
Similar results also occurred for the Mayaguez metropolitan area.
Here the correlation of status and distance was -.50. Distance was significant in explaining 24.8 percent of the variation of status dis tribution. Again, status declined with increasing distance, and, as in Ponce, neither time, nor sector, nor the interaction of variables was significant in explaining status variation. Status level at the city center was greater for Mayaguez than for Ponce, as was the decline of status with increasing distance.
The inverse status-distance relationship hypothesized for Ponce and Mayaguez is upheld. A negative relationship was not predicted for
San Juan, consequently the hypothesis is rejected for the metropolitan 2 area, but with reservations for the city area. 206
Sectors significantly explain status distribution only in San Juan, and then only when combined with distance and time. San Juan has a large enough area for such differences to occur while the areas of
Ponce and Mayaguez are considerably more compact, and while population growth occurred in a sectoral fashion, especially in Mayaguez, status distribution did not. Consequently the hypothesis stating that status would have a tendency to be sectorally distributed is not upheld for either Ponce or Mayaguez, and tentatively indicated in San Juan.
Time was not an explanatory factor for Mayaguez or Ponce either, while in San Juan it was, in conjunction with the sector and distance variables. No significant evidence of change was indicated to support
Schore's hypothesis that status distribution becomes positively re lated to distance as increase of scale occurs in the metropolitan area for Ponce or Mayaguez. The decrease in status degree at the city center for two sectors of San Juan lend support, as did the flattening of the status distance slope. The difference in Ponce, while not significant was in the direction of the predicted change while there was not even a discernible insignificant difference in
Mayaguez in 1970. Ten years is a relatively short span in which to evaluate a change in the distribution of areal characteristics, nor are Ponce and Mayaguez as extensive metropolitan areas as San Juan, thus the areal units do not yield the finer distinctions as do those in San Juan. Further growth and the passage of time are necessary before a significant change will take place. 207
In summary, status groups were dissimilar in their residential distributions and that dissimilarity of residential distribution reflected the social distance between pairs of groups so that the most dissimilar groups were also those with the greatest social distance between them. This described both city and fringe areas for 1960 and 1970, even though the relationship was not as strong for the Ponce and Mayaguez fringes. Occupational group distribution had the greater number of exceptions due to the nature of the private household worker location, although the degree of deviation decreased 3 in 1970. The degree of dissimilarity did not increase over time: it decreased.
High and low status groups tended to be the most residentially segregated at both times for all cities and the San Juan fringe. High status groups were the most segregated in the Ponce and Mayaguez fringes: The distribution of segregation ranks was more J-shaped here, indicating the essentially rural and low status characteristics of the fringe as well as a tendency for high status groups to cluster whereas low status groups are more residentially dispersed. Fringe development appears to be in its incipient stages in both these fringes.
Status group location tended to be inversely related to distance in each metropolitan area. The city of San Juan exhibited a direct relation, typical of North American cities. For Ponce and Mayaguez cities the relationship was negative. Mayaguez was unique in that the relationship became more negative, while that in the fringe, unlike 208
Ponce, had a direct relationship for education in 1960 and for occupa tion in 1970. Other correlations were of lesser magnitude than those of the Ponce fringe. To some extent, uncontrollable tract changes may have contributed to this phenomena; on the other hand, population growth in the Mayaguez fringe was largely in one long strip, so that these correlations are not inconceivable. If growth were to occur more regu larly in the fringe, the positive relationship for occupation might revert, as it did for education. Centralization of groups in the city versus the fringe reflects increasing centralization of low status groups in San Juan and Ponce concurrent with decreasing centralization of higher status groups. Again, Mayaguez was the exception: little increased centralization of low status groups occurred while decreased centralization was typical.
Distance from the city center was significant in explaining the distribution of status for each metropolitan area. Sectors were not.
Only in San Juan were time and sector significant. Thus, while the status-distance relation fits each city as predicted, there was no significant change in the distribution for Ponce and Mayaguez. As mentioned earlier, the lack of change may be due to an insignificant amount of time elapsing between the selected observation points, as well as other factors, to be discussed in Chapter VI. Footnotes for Chapter V
Status for the covariance test uses factor scores composed of 1) the percent of the labor force for each tract which was employed in a white-collar occupation; 2) the tracts median income; and 3} the tracts1 median years of school completed. A principal components factor solution was performed specifying one factor yielding the factor scores for each city and year. The reliability of the resulting city and year indices was computed: each had a reliability score in excess of .95, indicating the high reliability of the measure. 2 Because the Schwirian and Rico findings for San Juan City in 1960 indicated a positive status-distance relationship and the findings of this paper likewise indicated the same for 1970, an analysis of covariance was performed using a quadratic equation: the amount of variance explained increased for San Juan, indicating that status increases with distance to a point in the fringe where it begins to decrease. 3 Kent P. Schwirian and Jesus Rico-Velasco, "The Residential Distribution of Status Groups in Puerto Rico's Metropolitan areas," Kent P. Schwirian, etc., Comparative Urban Structure (Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company, 1974), p. 420.
209 CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS
This study has examined both population growth and indicators of modernization in metropolitan Puerto Rico over time in order to demonstrate the pattern of growth and areal pattern of development indicators, and to provide a more extensive background setting in which to examine status residential distribution. The data generally indicate a pattern of internal city growth and modernization re flecting relative city size. The data for residential distribution of status reflect both city size and the metropolitan level of economic development.
Summary
For the data concerning population growth it was found that
1) San Juan, the largest metropolitan area, had growth rates in ex cess of those for the three smaller cities, except Caguas in 1970:
Caguas, however, is located contiguously to the San Juan area, thus the locus of growth did not extend to Ponce or Mayaguez; 2) de centralization of population occurred in each metropolitan area such that the areas losing population were those forming the innermost area of the city while those gaining population were near or in the fringe area; 3) the initiation of decentralization paralleled city 210 211
size: thus San Juan began to decentralize first while the remaining cities lagged behind in order of their size; 4) the fringe growth rate was greatest in San Juan, less in Ponce, and least in Mayaguez.
It was found for indicators of modernization that 1) city-fringe differentiation existed for each metropolitan area such that the city tended to have a greater degree of modernization; 2) the degree of differentiation paralleled city-size rank so that the San Juan fringe was the least dissimilar from the city and Mayaguez the most; 3) the diffusion of modernization characteristics to the fringes also occurred by order of city size and tended to occur when decentralization in creased.
The data relevant to the characteristics of status groups generally support the findings of previous studies. For the three indexes of social status, income, occupation, and education, it was found that 1) the social status groups have dissimilar residential distributions such that the groups which are nearest each other in the status hierarchy are the most residentially similar while those that are the furthest apart are the most residentially dissimilar; 2) residential dissimi larity is a function of social distance 3) dissimilarity between groups did not increase over time 4) the most residentially segregated groups were those at the top and the bottom of the status hierarchy.
These four findings were exhibited by the metropolitan areas, cities and fringes. There was a tendency for high status groups to be more segregated than low status groups in the Ponce and Mayaguez fringes. 212
For status group location, the pertinent data revealed that 1) the pattern of residential centralization for the status groups is such that the classic Latin American pattern describes each metro politan area, the fringes for each area and the cities of Ponce and
Mayaguez while the North American pattern is the appropriate des cription for the city of San Juan; 2) these patterns seem to hold for both 1960 and 1970. Centralization patterns in 1970 for the San Juan fringe and the Ponce city were of less strength than in 1960, but did not indicate a pattern change while in Mayaguez city the status dis tance association became stronger: 3) over time there was a tendency for lower status groups to become more centralized in the city while higher status groups tended to become more decentralized, located in the fringe.
An analysis of covariance used to examine status characteristics of areas found that 1) status was distributed inversely for each metro politan area, with the relationship weakest in San Juan and strongest in Mayaguez; 2) there was no significant change in this relationship over time, except for two sectors in San Juan; 3) sectoral differences in status distribution existed only in San Juan.
Discussion
While an increase in scale occurred overall for Puerto Rico during the time of observation, it occurred differentially for the Puerto Rican metropolitan areas and differentially within them, just as did population 213
growth. This differential development is reflected by differential residential status distribution within the metropolitan areas.
The status distribution of San Juan reflects its position in the
Puerto Rican urban hierarchy as the "gateway to development"'*'. It is developed to a greater degree than the other cities; moreover it began this process earlier than did the other cities. Its status distribu tion for the city is North American in pattern with low status groups residing near the city center and high status groups near the fringe while in the fringe the high status groups reside near the city boundary and the low status groups are dispersed in the fringe periphery. Although the fringe was less modernized than the city it had some similarities with fringe areas of North American metropolitan areas, indicating that the San Juan metropolitan area is developed as a whole, unlike Ponce and Mayaguez.
In the urban hierarchy, Ponce was next in development characteris tics, followed by Mayaguez. Both areas had fringes which were markedly different from the cities. Ponce, in terms of the Puerto Rican trans portation network, is more accessible than Mayaguez indicating that it is relatively more interdependent with San Juan and the remainder of
Puerto Rico than Mayaguez. This ranking of development for both 1960 2 and 1970 supports previous findings in Puerto Rico.
The distribution of social status within each city supports the
Schwirian and Rico findings also and reflects the level of development for the metropolitan areas. The inclusion of the fringe areas in the 214
analysis clarified the distribution pattern foi' the entire metropolitan
areas, and enabled a more thorough examination of change over time.
Though a change in the social status residential distribution did not
occur to a significant degree, what slight changes that did occur were in the predicted direction for San Juan and Ponce. Mayaguez was unique
in that there was an apparent shift to a pattern more solidly Latin
American in 1970 than in 1960. In part, this may have been influenced by irreconcilable boundary changes, but could also reflect the stage of development that Mayaguez is in: one of physical rather than radial expansion: although Mayaguez had decentralized somewhat, no con-
committant change occurred in the location of status in the predicted direction: rather, there may be an increased concentration of low status groups near the fringe. This possibility, and the fact that what high status group movement there was to the periphery occurred in the fringe in a long narrow strip, bypassing the city periphery.
While the impact of economic development on social status centrali zation is not indicated for Ponce and Mayaguez between 1960 and 1970, even though increase of scale occurred, there is the possibility that the increase in scale and diffusion of development have not proceeded to a stage where such a change would occur. Ten years is a short time span in which to examine such change in ecological structure. What
changes there were in Ponce were in the predicted direction: middle status groups were somewhat more centralized than expected and, as the
Dotson's indicated, these groups would be the ones to first invade old 215
upper status areas, as they are the most likely groups to be able to 3 afford to locate in these areas. Moreover, the traditional Latin
American plaza housing may also provide further inertia to change with its interior-oriented patio construction, unlike North American free standing and exterior-oriented housing. Because plaza housing is interior-oriented, changing conditions in the immediate vicinity may not be viewed as undesirable as quickly as they might in North American cities. Also, the plaza itself tends to be symbolically traditional of a way of life and may tend also to hinder change.
In addition, the plazas in Ponce and Mayaguez are not located on the coast: an area which may be more conducive to industrial location and its concommittant disrupting influence because of its access to shipping transportation. Since much of Puerto Rico's development has been oriented toward exportation, the shipping was developed earlier than the land transportation system and may well have created some precedent in land use locations. Also, neither Ponce nor Mayaguez are extremely engaged in heavy manufacturing industries which provide more inconveniences for residential areas than do light manufacturing industries. In San Juan, much of the heavy industry is located in the
Catano municipio, across the bay from Old San Juan while in San Juan itself are the majority of commercial establishments.
Overall, increase of scale did occur, the city and fringe areas, while different, were less so than in the past: status groups were dissimilar in both the city and fringe in a similar pattern and high 216
and low status groups tended to be the most segregated. While a cen
tralization pattern change did not occur, except for parts of San Juan,
it is anticipated that such change will occur in the future, as develop ment further penetrates the metropolitan areas and given that they
continue to experience population growth.
The study supports the Schwirian and Rico findings for 1960 and extends them to 1970, where they are essentially no different. The
addition of the fringe areas in the analysis provides a more intensive examination of the functional interdependency of the metropolitan
areas, as did the extension via use of past data. It is apparent that the level of development of a metropolitan area has an effect on the internal ecological structure, as does population growth. While Ponce
and Mayaguez experienced both development and growth, neither did to the extent that such a change was induced. They are both relatively small cities with a relatively small industrial base. Apparently
these changes were not yet sufficient in degree to set the processes in motion for rapid change of internal structure: it is suggested that such change will be more long-term in occurence. Footnotes for Chapter VI
Kent P. Schwirian and Jesus Rico-Velasco, "The Residential Distribution of Status Groups in Puerto Rico's Metropolitan Areas," in Kent P. Schwirian, ed., Comparative Urban Structure, (Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath Co., 1974), p. 421. 2 Schwirian and Rico, op. cit., p. 421; Kent P. Schwirian and Ruth K. Smith, "Primacy, Modernization, and Urban Structure: The Ecology of Puerto Rican Cities," in Kent P. Schwirian, ed., Comparative Urban Structure, op. cit. p. 334. 3 Eloyd and Lillian 0. Dotson, "Ecological Trends in the City of Guadalajara, Mexico," Social Forces, 32 (1954), p. 372.
217 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Burgess, Ernest W. "The Growth of the City," in The City. Edited by Robert Park, Ernest W. Burgess, and R. D. MacKenzie. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1925.
Caplow, Theodore. "The Social Ecology of Guatemala City," in Studies in Human Ecology, pp. 331-348. Edited by George A. Theodorson. New York: Harper and Row, 1961.
, Sheldon Stryker and Samuel E. Wallace. The Urban Ambience. New York: Bedminister Press, 1964.
Christopulaos, Diane. "Puerto Rico in the Twentieth Century," in Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans. Edited by Adalberto Lopez and James Petras. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974.
Collison, Peter. "Occupation, Education, and Housing in an English City." American Journal of Sociology 65 (I960): 588-597.
______, and John Mogey. "Residence and Social Class in Oxford." American Journal of Sociology 64 (1960): 599-604.
Dotson, Floyd, and Lillian 0. Dotson. "Urban Centralization and Decentralization in Mexico," Rural Sociology 21 (1956): 41-49.
Duncan, 0. D., and Beverly Duncan. "Residential Distribution and Occupational Stratification." American Journal of Sociology 60 (1955): 493-503.
Gibbs, Jack P. Urban Research Methods. New York: D. VanNostrand Company, Inc., 1961.
Greer, Scott. The Emerging City. New York: The Free Press, 1962.
Haggerty, Lee J. "Another Look at the Burgess Hypothesis: Time As an Important Variable." American Journal of Sociology 76 (1971): 1091-1099.
Hansen, Asael T. "The Ecology of a Latin American City," in Race and Culture Contacts, Chapter VIII. Edited by E. B. Reuter. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1934.
218 219
Hansen, Earl P. Puerto Rico: Ally for Progress. Princeton, New Jersey: D. VanNostrand, 1962.
Hawthorny Harry B. and Audrey E. Hawthorn. "The Shape of a City: Some Observations on Sucre, Bolivia," Sociology and Social Research 33 (1948): 87-91.
Hayner, Norman S. "Mexico City: Its Growth and Configuration," American Journal of Sociology 50 (1945): 295-304.
Heise, David R., and George W. Bohmstedt. "Validityj Invalidity, and Reliability," in Sociological Methodology, pp. 106-113. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970.
Hoselitz, Bert F. "The Role of Cities in the Economic Growth of Underdeveloped Countries," in The City in Newly Developing Countries, pp. 232-245, Edited by Gerald S. Breese. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1969.
Kerlinger, Fred N., and Elazar J. Pedhazur. Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973.
Latif, A. H. "Residential Segregation and Location of Status Religious Groups in Alexandria, Egypt," in Comparative Urban Structure: Studies in the Ecology of Cities, pp. 423-432. Edited by Kent P. Schwirian. Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company, 1974. ______, and A. M. Lutfiyya. "Residential Segregation and Location of Status Groups in the Major Metropolitan Areas in Western Canada," Unpublished paper. University of Manitoba. (Mimeographed)
Leonard, Olen E. "La Paz, Bolivia: Its Population and Growth," American Sociological Review 13 (1948): 449-454.
Linsky, Arnold S. "Some Generalizations Concerning Primate Cities," in The City in Newly Developing Countries, pp. 288-294. Edited by Gerald S. Breese. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969.
Lopez, Adalberto, and James Petras. Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974.
Maldonado-Denis, Manuel. Puerto Rico: A Socio-Historic Interpretation. New York: Random House, 1972. 220
Masisco, John J., Leon F. Bouvier and Robert H. Weller. "The Effect of Labor Force Participation on the Relation between Migration Status and Fertility in San Juan, Puerto Rico." The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 48 (January 1970).
Mattila, John M., and Wilbur R. Thompson. "The Measurement of the Economic Base of Metropolitan Areas," in Urban Research Methods. Edited by Jack P. Gibbs. New York: D. VanNostrand Company, Inc., 1961.
Mehta, Surinder K. "Patterns of Residence in Poona (India), by Income, Education and Occupation (1937-1965)." American Journal of Sociology 73 (1968): 496-508.
______. "Patterns of Residence on Poona, India, by Caste and Religion: 1822-1965." Demography 6 (1969): 473-491.
Morley, Morris. "Dependence and Development in Puerto Rico," in Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans. Edited by Adalberto Lopez and James Petras. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974.
Morse, Richard M. "Recent Research on Latin American Urbanization: A Selective Survey with Commentary," in The City in Newly Develop ing Countries, pp. 474-506. Edited by Gerald S. Breese. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1969.
Nie, Norman, et al. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Second edition. New Yorl^ McGraw-Hiir_Bbbk Company, 1975.
Pico, Rafael. The Geography of Puerto Rico. Chicago: Aldine Publish ing Company, 1974.
Schnore, Leo F. "On the Spatial Structure of Cities in the Two Americas," in The Study of Urbanization, pp. 347-398. Edited by Phillip M. Hauser and Leo F. Schnore. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965.
______. "The Timing of Metropolitan Decentralization: A Contribution to the Debate," in The Urban Scene, pp. 98-113. Edited by Leo F. Schnore. New York: The Free Press, 1965.
Schwirian, Kent P., and Marc Matre. "The Ecological Structure of Canadian Cities," in Comparative Urban Structure: Studies in the Ecology of Cities, pp. 309-323. Edited by Kent P. Schwirian. Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company, 1974. 221
______, and Jesus Rico-Velasco. "The Residential Distribution of Status Groups in Puerto Rico's Metropolitan Areas," in Comparative Urban Structure: Studies in the Ecology of Cities, pp. 413-426. Edited by Kent P. Schwirian. Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company, 1974.
______, and Ruth K. Smith. "Primacy, Modernization and Urban Structure: The Ecology of Puerto Rican Cities," in Comparative Urban Structure: Studies in the Ecology of Cities, pp. 324-338. Edited by Kent P. Schwirian. Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company, 1974.
Sjoberg, Gideon. The Pre-industrial City. New York: The Free Press, 1961.
Stanislawski, Dan. "The Anatomy of Eleven Towns in Michoacan," in Studies in Human Ecology, pp. 348-355. Edited by George A. Theodorson. New York: Harper and Row, 1961.
Thomlinson, Ralph. Urban Structure; The Social and Spatial Character of Cities. New York: Random House, 1969.
United States Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Census of the Population: 1950, vol. II, Characteristics of the Population, pt. 53, Puerto Rico.
______. Census of the Population: 1970, vol. I, Characteristics of the Population, pt. A, Number of Inhabitants, section 2, Missouri- Syoming, Puerto Rico and Outlying Territories.
______. Census of the Population: 1970. General Social and Economic Characteristics, PC (1)-C53.
______. Census of the Population: 1970. Population and Housing Characteristics by Census Tracts, PHC (l)-239, Mayaguez.
______. Census of the Population: 1970. Population and Housing Characteristics by Census Tracts, PHC (l)-240, Ponce.
______. Census of the Population: 1970. Population and Housing Characteristics by Census Tracts, PHC (1)-241, San Juan.
______. Census of the Population: 1960, vol. I, Characteristics of the Population, pt. 53, Puerto Rico. 222
______. Census of the Population: 1960. Population and Housing Characteristics by Census Tracts, PHC (13-178, Mayaguez.
______. Census of the Population: 1960. Population and Housing Characteristics by Census Tracts, PHC (1)--179, Ponce.
______. Census of the Population: 1960. Population and Housing Characteristics by Census Tracts, PHC (1)-180, San Juan.
______. Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930. Outlying Territories and Possessions.
______. Fourteenth Census of the United States: 1920. Characteristics of the Population, vo1. I.
___ . Sixteenth Census of the United States; 1940. Character istics of the Population. Puerto Rico, Bulletin No. 2.
______. Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940. Character istics of the Population. Puerto Rico, Bulletin, No. 3.
United States Department of War. Report on the Census of Puerto Rico: 1899.
Uyecki, Eugene. "Residential Distribution and Stratification, 1950-1960." American Journal of Sociology 69 (1964): 491- 498.
Winsborough, Hal. "An Ecological Approach to the Theory of Sub urbanization," in Comparative Urban Structure: Studies in the Ecology of Cities, pp. 74-79. Edited by Kent P. Schwirian. Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company, 1974.