Ethnic and Technical Clustering: Native-Born Americans Versus Foreign S&E Graduates

  • Yiu Por Chen
Part of the International Studies in Entrepreneurship book series (ISEN, volume 18)


This chapter seeks to explain the differences in the spatial distribution of native-born American as opposed to foreign PhD holders in the fields of science and engineering (S&E), with a specific focus on graduates from China and India. In this chapter, unlike in Chapter 4, we highlight the effects of ethnic clustering and high-technology clustering on spatial assimilations. Further, we concentrate on H1-B visa holders as opposed to naturalized Americans. Ethnic clustering is defined as the inclination of immigrants to settle in places where their ethnicity is concentrated. Technical clustering refers to the tendency of workers with similar skills to move to places where the industries in which they work are concentrated. By connecting these two concepts, this study advances the debate on spatial displacement of foreign S&E PhDs and technology clustering to another level of analysis.

We ask: To what extent can the spatial concentration of, for example, Asians in California...


Social Capital Spillover Effect Technical Cluster Location Choice Industrial Cluster 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alba RD, Logan JR (1991) Variation on two themes: Racial and ethnic patterns in attainment of suburban residence. Demography 28:431–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alba RD, Logan JR (1992) Analyzing locational attainments: Constructing individual-level regression models using aggregate data. Sociol Meth Res 20:367–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alba RD, Logan JR (1993) Minority proximity to whites in suburbs: An individual-level analysis of segregation. Am J Sociol 98:1388–1427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartel AP, Koch. MJ (1991) Internal migration of U.S. immigrants. In: Bowd JM, Freeman RB (eds) Immigration, trade, and the labor market. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertrand M, Mullainathan S (2004) Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. Am Econ Rev 94:991–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blau P, Duncan OD (1967) The American occupational structure. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Borjas G (1994) Ethnicity, Neighborhoods, and Human-Capital Externalities. Am Econ Rev 85:365–390.Google Scholar
  8. Borjas G (2005) Immigration trends in the New York metropolitan area. Fed Res Bank NY Econ Pol Rev 2005:91–101Google Scholar
  9. Chakravorty S, Koo J, Lall SV (2003) Metropolitan industrial clusters: Patterns and processes. Paper presented at the 2003 UNU/WIDER Tokyo conference on Spatial Inequality in AsiaGoogle Scholar
  10. Chiswick BR, Lee YL, Miller PW (2002) The determinants of the geographic concentration among immigrants: Application to Australia. IZA Discussion Paper No. 462Google Scholar
  11. Collaborative Economics (2005) 2005 Index of Silicon Valley. Joint Venture: Silicon Valley NetworkGoogle Scholar
  12. Feldman MP, Audretsch DB (1999) Innovation in cities: Science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition. Eur Econ Rev 43:409–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Florida R (2002) The economic geography of talent. Ann Assoc Am Geog 92:743–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freeman R, Weinstein E, Marincola E et al (2001) Competition and careers in biosciences. Science 294:2293–2294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fujita M, Ogawa H (1980) Equilibrium land use patterns in a non-monocentric city. J Reg Sci 20:455–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gross DM, Schmitt N (2003) The role of cultural clustering in attracting new immigrants. J Reg Sci 43:295–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gross DM, Schmitt N (2006) Why do low- and high-skill workers migrate? Flow evidence from France. Working Paper No. 1797, CESifoGoogle Scholar
  18. Helsley R, Strange W (1990) Matching and agglomeration in a system of cities. Reg Sci Urb Econ 20:189–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koo J (2005a). Knowledge-based industry clusters: Evidenced by geographic patterns of patents in manufacturing. Urb Stud 42:1457–1505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koo, J (2005b). Technology spillovers, agglomeration, and regional economic development. J Plan Lit 20:99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krugman P (1991) Increasing returns and economic geography. J Polit Econ 99:483–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krugman P (1996) Development, geography and economic theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  23. Logan JR, Alba RD (1993) Locational returns to human capital: Minority access to suburban community resources. Demography 30:243–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marshall A (1890) Principles of economics. MacMillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Massey DS, Arango J, Hugo G et al (1993) Theories of international migration: A review and appraisal. Pop Dev Rev 19:431–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Science Foundation (1998) International mobility of scientists and engineers to the United States – Brian drain or brain circulation? NSF 98-316, JuneGoogle Scholar
  27. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics (2001) 2001 Survey of doctorate recipientsGoogle Scholar
  28. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics (2003) Characteristics of doctoral scientists and engineers in the United States: 2001. NSF 03-310Google Scholar
  29. Phinney JS (1996) When we talk about American ethnic groups, what do we mean? Am Psychol 51:918–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Porter ME (2000) Locations, clusters, and company strategy. In: Clark GL, Feldman MP, Gertler MS (eds) The Oxford handbook of economic geography. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  31. Saxenian A (1994) Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  32. Stephan PE, Sumell AJ, Black GC et al (2004) Doctoral education and economic development: The flow of new PhD’s to industry. Econ Devel Q 18:151–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. U.S. Census Bureau (2000) Census 2000 summary file 1, matrix P8Google Scholar
  34. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics (2004) Characteristics of specialty occupation workers (H-1B): Fiscal year 2003Google Scholar
  35. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2002) Report on characteristics of specialty occupation workers (H1-B): Fiscal year 2000Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yiu Por Chen
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Public Service, DePaul UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations