A Case Study of Economic Growth and Racial Inequity in the American South

Background and Purpose. From infant mortality to life expectancy, race predicts outcomes in the United States. Racial inequities are created and sustained through governmental and institutional policies and practices. Durham, North Carolina in the American South has experienced rapid growth, but the economic opportunities this growth provides are not equitably shared. This in part is due to historical law and policy such as urban renewal and redlining (Norton, 2015). Neighborhoods where urban renewal and redlining occurred have traditionally been primarily African American and bore the brunt of those federal policies as evident in lower homeownership, lower value homes, lack of infrastructure, and the like. This project takes Durham as a case study to examine how policies led to racial inequities, concluding by proposing approaches for ameliorating such outcomes.

Methods. We used a mixed-methods approach for this study, including US Census and administrative data, observation, and qualitative interviews. We conducted 17 interviews with a variety of stakeholders, including city council members, planning department staff, real estate developers, public interest lawyers, nonprofit organization staff, and residents facing residential or business displacement. We completed windshield surveys of three gentrifying Durham neighborhoods: Cleveland-Holloway, where housing prices increased 490% between 2005 and 2015, Old North Durham (110%), and Old East Durham (32%). Systematic observations from the windshield surveys included infrastructure assessments, such as the presence or absence of sidewalks and crosswalks, and housing assessments, such as maintenance and deterioration.

Results. Durham’s poverty rate differs widely by race/ethnicity: 13.7% among white residents, 25.2% among black residents, and 34.4% among Latinx residents (US Census, 2015). Durham also has disparities in asset poverty, the minimum threshold of wealth needed for household security: 21.5% of white residents, 46.7% of black residents, and 55.2% of Latinx residents (CFED, 2012). Interview participants described displacement from neighborhoods they called home for 30+ years, leading to loss of social networks and isolation. When neighborhoods began to gentrify following economic growth, landlords realized they could get higher rents from new, higher-income white residents. The homes of those who remain stand in stark contrast to those of new residents. Windshield surveys revealed neighborhoods with recently renovated homes next to those that showed signs of deterioration, such as peeling paint and sagging foundations, limiting their value. Businesses owned by people of color have also been affected. Rising rents have forced many businesses out of the booming downtown business district to less desirable locations or forced them to close completely.

Conclusions and Implications. One method to improve outcomes is through racial equity training, used successfully within governments to achieve equity by providing a racial equity lens with which to view policy development (Johnson, Antle, & Barbee, 2009). Second, governments and institutions can implement racial equity toolkits to insure equity in budget and policy decisions. Such tools actively insert discussions of equity into the decision-making process, including for policies, practices, programs, and budgeting. Racial equity training and use of toolkits are promising ways to combat these racially inequitable outcomes and ensure that one’s race does not predict success.