Demography (2017) 54:2249–2271 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-017-0625-8 Second-Generation Outcomes of the Great Migration J. Trent Alexander1 & Christine Leibbrand 2 & Catherine Massey1 & Stewart Tolnay2 Published online: 8 November 2017 # Population Association of America 2017 Abstract The mass migration of African Americans out of the South during the first two-thirds of the twentieth century represents one of the most significant internal migration flows in U.S. history. Those undertaking the Great Migration left the South in search of a better life, and their move transformed the cultural, social, and political dynamics of African American life specifically and U.S. society more generally. Recent research offers conflicting evidence regarding the migrants’ success in translating their geographic mobility into economic mobility. Due in part to the lack of a large body of longitudinal data, almost all studies of the Great Migration have focused on the migrants themselves, usually over short periods of their working lives. Using longitu- dinally linked census data, we take a broader view, investigating the long-term eco- nomic and social effects of the Great Migration on the migrants’ children. Our results reveal modest but statistically significant advantages in education, income, and poverty status for the African American children of the Great Migration relative to the children of southerners who remained in the South. In contrast, second-generation white migrants experienced few benefits from migrating relative to southern or northern stayers. Keywords Great Migration . Second-generation migrants . Migrant outcomes . Socioeconomic outcomes Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-017- 0625-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. * Christine Leibbrand [email protected]; [email protected] 1 Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 426 Thompson Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, USA 2 Department of Sociology, University of Washington, Savery Hall, Box 353340, Seattle, WA 98195-3340, USA Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article-pdf/54/6/2249/840856/2249alexander.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021 2250 J.T. Alexander et al. Introduction: The Great Migration At the turn of the twentieth century, the southern African American population had ample reason to consider leaving the South. Decades of discrimination and oppression following the Civil War had resulted in educational deprivation, economic disadvan- tage, political weakness, and thousands of victims of lethal southern mobs (Anderson 1989;Beck2015;Blackmon2008;Kousser1974;Mandle1978, 1992;Margo1990; Tolnay and Beck 1992). In 1900, the vast majority of southern-born blacks continued to reside in southern states, with less than 5 % located outside the South (Tolnay 1999, 2003). In contrast, southern-born whites were migrating north and west in substantially larger numbers than their black counterparts. By the mid-twentieth century, however, the situation had changed dramatically. Roughly 20 % of southern-born blacks lived outside their region of birth, with an overwhelming share of those migrants located in a handful of northern and western cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Detroit, and Philadelphia (White et al. 2005). By contrast, roughly 15 % of southern-born whites resided outside the South and were distributed more widely across states, cities, and even nonmetropolitan areas (Tolnay 1999; White et al. 2005). This massive stream of black and white migrants from the South persisted from roughly 1915 through 1970 and is commonly referred to as the “Great Migration.” The substantial regional and residential population redistribution that resulted from the Great Migration altered the economies, political landscapes, racial climates, and cultures of both the South and the non-South (Gregory 2005).1 How did the southern migrants and their families fare in “the promised land”? Classical migration theories assume that, on average, the type of interregional move- ment that characterized the Great Migration should benefit the migrants (Borjas 1987; Greenwood 2015;Lee1966; Ravenstein 1885;Ritchey1976). Many have investigated the socioeconomic outcomes for southern out-migrants, assessing whether this interre- gional movement did, in fact, benefit those who moved. Our study is the first to use longitudinal data to reveal how the Great Migration influenced the socioeconomic outcomes of the migrants’ children—the Great Migration’s second generation—in their adulthood. Our study includes both white and black migrants. We compare these migrant groups with second-generation stayers, whose parents never left the South, as well as with those who were born to northern-born parents and residing in the non- South. The consideration of second-generation and even third-generation migrants is quite common in the literature on international migration (Alba 2005;Boyd2009;Boydand Grieco 1998; Chiswick and DebBurman 2004; Farley and Alba 2002;Kalmijn1996; Park and Myers 2010; Portes et al. 2009; Reitz et al. 2011;Sakamotoetal.2010; Thomas 2012; Trejo 2003). This expanded focus is motivated by the recognition that first-generation migrants who cross national borders face significant adjustment chal- lenges—for example, language and cultural differences—that will prove less daunting 1 We occasionally refer to the “South” and “non-South,” using the latter to refer to all states outside of the census-defined South. In some cases, we distinguish between the “North” and “West” as distinct nonsouthern locations. When we use the generic terms of “North” and “northern,” without additional distinction, we are referring to all areas outside the South. Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article-pdf/54/6/2249/840856/2249alexander.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021 Second-Generation Outcomes of the Great Migration 2251 for their children and grandchildren. It is also based on the recognition that first- generation international migrants typically seek better lives for themselves and their broader family networks, including their children. In many ways, the gulf between southern and nonsouthern states during much of the Great Migration was similar in scale to the cross-national contrasts encountered by international migrants. As a result, generational variation in the adjustment process—and ultimate well-being—among migrants is likely. Furthermore, those who left the South surely considered the benefits of their decision for their children, especially for African American migrants who sought both socioeconomic opportunity and social justice. Indeed, racial differences are an important part of the story of the Great Migration and, by extension, our examination of the experiences of second-generation migrants. Whites and blacks alike experienced the consequences of limited economic opportunity in the South, including retarded industrial development and an agricultural system based heavily on the labor of landless farm tenants and sharecroppers (Mandle 1978, 1992; Ransom and Sutch 1977;Ruef2014). Southern blacks were confronted with the additional burden of Jim Crow laws and customs as well as frequent racially motivated violence (McAdam 1982;Morris1984; Tolnay and Beck 1995; Woodward 1951). In a similar vein, the contexts of reception in the North and West for black and white migrants from the South were not identical, with occupational opportunities highly stratified by race (Lieberson 1978) and with many northerners viewing increases in the black population with particular hostility (Drake and Cayton 1945;Ignatiev1995; Roediger 1991;Spear1967; Trotter 1985). In light of these racialized differences in the sending and receiving regions of the Great Migration, it is reasonable to anticipate racial variation in the experiences of the migrants. In this study, we analyze the long-term outcomes for the Great Migration’ssecond generation using novel longitudinal data constructed by linking individuals in the 1940 census to the 2000 census long form. These data allow us to observe the location of individuals in 1940 and 2000 as well as the location of their own and parents’ birthplaces. From this information, we identify the children of Great Migration partic- ipants and determine whether these children were born before or after their parents left the South. We also observe the socioeconomic characteristics of each individual’s childhood home in addition to their own adult outcomes. Our results reveal modest but statistically significant advantages in education, income, and poverty status for African American children of the Great Migration relative to the children of southerners who did not leave the South. However, second-generation white migrants largely did not differ from their southern or northern stayer counterparts after the characteristics of their parents in 1940 are accounted for. Outcomes in the Great Migration The question of whether migrants benefitted from leaving the South is relatively recent. For years, researchers and commentators assumed that individuals did benefit socially, politically, and economically, given the significant “push” factors from their origin location, the “pull” factors to their destination locations, and the logic of rational choice theories of human migration (e.g., Greenwood 2015;Lee1966;Masseyetal.1993; Ritchey 1976). Letters written by migrants and potential migrants, as well as oral Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article-pdf/54/6/2249/840856/2249alexander.pdf