Asian American Assimilation: Ethnicity, Immigration, and Socioeconomic Attainment (The New Americans)

The New Americans Recent Immigration and American Society Edited by Steven J. Gold and Rubén G. Rumbaut A Series from...

Author: C.N. Le

8 downloads 729 Views 1MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

The New Americans Recent Immigration and American Society

Edited by Steven J. Gold and Rubén G. Rumbaut

A Series from LFB Scholarly

This page intentionally left blank

Asian American Assimilation Ethnicity, Immigration, and Socioeconomic Attainment

C.N. Le

LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC New York 2007

Copyright © 2007 by LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Le, C. N. (Cuong Nguyen) Asian American assimilation : ethnicity, immigration, and socioeconomic attainment / C.N. Le. p. cm. -- (The new Americans : recent immigration and American society) The history of Asian immigration and assimilation -- Vietnamese Americans : history and context -- Climbing the ladder : income, occupation, and prestige attainment -- Doing it their way : entrepreneurship and small business ownership -- Race and place : residential segregation and quality of neighborhoods -- Glimpses into the future : interracial and interethnic marriage -- Conclusion: Forging their own mainstream. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-1-59332-175-8 (alk. paper) ISBN-10: 1-59332-175-9 (alk. paper) 1. Asian Americans--Cultural assimilation. 2. Asian Americans-Ethnic identity. 3. Immigrants--United States--Social conditions. 4. Asian Americans--Social conditions. 5. Asian Americans--Economic conditions. 6. United States--Ethnic relations. 7. United States-Emigration and immigration. 8. Asia--Emmigration and immigration. I. Title. E184.A75L4 2007 305.895'073--dc22 2007014422 ISBN-10: 1-59332-175-9 ISBN-13: 978-1-59332-175-8 Printed on acid-free 250-year-life paper. Manufactured in the United States of America.

Table of Contents Introduction..........................................................................................1 Chapter One The History of Asian Immigration and Assimilation......................15 Chapter Two Vietnamese Americans: History and Context .................................29 Chapter Three Climbing the Ladder: Income, Occupation, and Prestige Attainment....................................................................65 Chapter Four Doing It Their Way: Entrepreneurship and Small Business Ownership....................................................... 101 Chapter Four Race and Place: Residential Segregation and Quality of Neighborhoods ........................................................ 137 Chapter Five Glimpses Into the Future: Interracial and Interethnic Marriage................................................................ 169 Conclusion Forging Their Own Mainstream .................................................... 201 Appendix........................................................................................... 223 References......................................................................................... 227 Index.................................................................................................. 245

v


Acknowledgements I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Nancy Denton, Hayward Derrick Horton, and Richard Alba for their support, guidance, and assistance throughout the years. Each of them have enlightened me with their wisdom and expertise and have inspired me with their passion and vision for their work. I also wish to acknowledge several past and present colleagues of the Department of Sociology and the larger University at Albany community, including Kyle Crowder, Eunju Lee, Hui-shien Tsao, Jacob Stowell, Guy Forte, Stewart Tolnay, Patty Glenn, Glenn Deane, and the Center for Technology in Government. Further, I would like to thank my colleagues in the Department of Sociology at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. In different ways, each of them have provided me with generous support and valuable assistance. This research was supported in part by travel and research grants provided by the Graduate Student Organization at the University at Albany and by a Research Fellowship provided by the Institute for Asian American Studies at the University of Massachusetts at Boston (Paul Watanabe, Director).

vii


Introduction Contact, competition, accommodation, and then assimilation. That was how Robert Park first described the process of racial/ethnic assimilation (Park 1928). Of course, his theories are more complex and detailed than just those four processes, as are much of the sociological writings and research from other scholars who have examined the process of assimilation from different points of views, levels of analysis, and methodological perspectives. Nonetheless, the assimilation of racial/ethnic minorities and immigrants has consistently been one of the predominant issues in sociological research. The assimilation process can involve political, social, cultural, and economic incorporation of groups traditionally seen as external to or excluded from full participation in mainstream society. As sociologists have pointed out, assimilation can proceed in many different forms and produce different outcomes (Alba 1990; Gordon 1964; Portes and Zhou 1993; Waters 1990). Throughout American history, several racial/ethnic minority groups have undergone some sort of assimilation process upon their arrival in the U.S. While there is an abundance of research comparing the assimilation of Latino and Asian immigrants to their European predecessors, there is a shortage of analyses that looks into the differences of assimilation outcomes among Asian Americans. One of the most recent racial/ethnic minority groups that is undergoing its own assimilation process are Vietnamese Americans1. As part of the larger Asian American community, Vietnamese Americans share several political, social, and economic similarities with other Asian Americans in terms of how they relate to the larger non-Asian society and how they are treated by non-Asians. But they also possess the unique characteristic of having first arrived in the U.S. as refugees. This distinction brings with it several cultural and socioeconomic characteristics and issues that are specific to their own community.

1

“Asian Americans” and “Vietnamese Americans” refers to the population living in the United States who self-identify as having Asian or Vietnamese ancestry respectively, regardless of nativity, citizenship status, length of residence, legal status, or I.N.S. classification (i.e., refugees versus immigrants).

1

2

Asian American Assimilation

As a result, Vietnamese Americans can be very similar and very different not only from the larger American society but from other Asian Americans as well. This research will examine and analyze how Vietnamese Americans compare with other Asian American ethnic groups across different assimilation outcomes. Using data from the 2000 Census (with supporting data from the 1990 and 1980 Integrated Public Use Microdata Samples) and spanning different levels of assimilation from the structural down to the interpersonal, I illustrate how Vietnamese Americans compare with other Asian American groups in terms of four categories of assimilation outcomes: socioeconomic (income, high-skill occupational attainment, and socioeconomic index score), spatial/residential (owning a home in the suburbs and suburban housing value), occupational (being selfemployed), and finally, cultural/social (marriage with an endogamous, pan-Asian, or White spouse). This research focuses on Asian Americans for several reasons. First, I am interested in examining the assimilation process from the standpoint of the ethnic minority group undergoing assimilation, rather than from perspective of the majority group. Therefore, the focus is limited to Asian Americans, rather than native-born Whites. There is an abundance of scholarly literature that examines how Asian Americans and other ethnic minority and immigrant groups compare to Whites in terms of socioeconomic achievement and mobility (see Alba, Logan and Crowder 1997; Cabezas 1990; Logan, Alba and Leung 1996; Reimers 1998). While these works usefully illuminate the contexts of racial/ethnic stratification and incorporation, many times Asian Americans are treated as one monolithic category or only one or two Asian ethnic groups are distilled from the analysis. Therefore, there is a clear need for a systematic sociological analysis and comparison of the differences within the broad Asian American racial category. Nonetheless, I recognize that many wonder why other ethnic minorities and immigrant groups are not also included in the analysis, such as European or Latino immigrants (in particular, Cuban Americans who are also predominantly refugees like Vietnamese). In general, I would again point out the need to focus on delineating the

Introduction

3

unique characteristics among Asian American ethnic groups. Controlling for “racial” category allows us to examine in more detail the specific social, economic, and cultural dynamics that operate within the Asian American community and which simultaneously unite and separate the experiences of different Asian American ethnic groups. Therefore, while comparing Vietnamese Americans with Cuban Americans can certainly yield interesting results, the focus in this particular analysis is to delineate assimilation processes and outcomes among Asian American ethnic groups. Further, this research distinguishes between the characteristics and experiences of two key populations within the Asian American community -- the U.S.-raised (those who are either born in the U.S. or the “1.5 generation” who immigrated to the U.S. before age 13) versus the foreign-raised (those who immigrated to the U.S. after their 13th birthday). Increasingly, sociological research is finding that there can be significant differences in the historical, cultural, and socioeconomic characteristics and experiences between those who have been primarily socialized within the context of American race relations and intergroup contact versus those whose formative socialization occurred outside of the U.S. (Alba and Nee 2003; Pang 1998; Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Waters 1990). In separating out these two interrelated but unique groups, we will be able to identify and analyze key socioeconomic and assimilation differences due to nativity and place of primary socialization. Finally, in focusing on the assimilation outcomes of Vietnamese Americans specifically, this analysis explores complicated and intersecting dynamics that relate to demographic shifts, ethnic competition and succession, post-Viet Nam war culture and confusion, contradictory government policies, and ethnic resilience and determination. In short, this research contributes to our sociological understanding by explicating how the dynamics of structural power and demographic shift affect the socioeconomic and sociocultural assimilation of Vietnamese refugees. Population shifts engender ethnic competition and succession (Horton, 1995; Steinberg, 1989). The arrival of Vietnamese refugees, human consequences of an unpopular war, bred confusion, curiosity, and resentment (Caplan, Whitmore, and Choy, 1989; Gold, 1993; Hein, 1988; Muzny, 1989; Rumbaut, 1991; Rutledge, 1992).

4


This research also represents an in-depth analysis of how individual characteristics, social structures, and population dynamics can affect assimilation outcomes across multiple levels and in the process, often reinforce, perpetuate, and exacerbate ethnic inequalities among not only Vietnamese Americans and “mainstream” American society but between Vietnamese Americans and other Asian American ethnic groups as well. To further appreciate how Vietnamese Americans interact with the larger Asian American and non-Asian communities in the U.S., it is first necessary to understand the historical, socioeconomic, and political context of Asian immigration to the U.S. This helps us to recognize the larger social environment into which Vietnamese Americans fit -- how they were received once they arrived by Asian Americans and non-Asians and the social institutions with which they interacted as they adapted to their new environment. CHAPTER ORGANIZATION AND SUMMARY Chapter One (“The History of Asian Immigration and Assimilation”) describes the historical origins of Asian immigration to the U.S. and the treatment these early Asian Americans encountered once in the U.S. It details examples of exclusion, discrimination, but also opportunity and accomplishment by highlighting the major events of Asian American history, including the early Chinese immigrant workers, the antiChinese movement that culminated in the Chinese Exclusion Act, the development of the first Chinatowns, and subsequent arrivals of immigrants from Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and India. It also details the two major turning points in Asian American history in the 20th century -- the Japanese American internment during World War II and the 1965 Immigration & Nationality Act, both of which significantly altered the landscape of the Asian American population and of American race relations in general. The second part of the chapter puts these historical events into the larger context of assimilation and social integration by describing the major theories and premises of conventional assimilation theory, along with important criticisms levied against such theories and calls by scholars for assimilation theory to be deconstructed and reconfigured.

Introduction

5

Chapter Two is entitled “Vietnamese Americans: History and Context” and focuses more specifically on the history and experiences of Vietnamese Americans. It begins with an overview of Vietnamese history, through western colonialization, its struggle for independence, subsequent division between the north and the south, the Viet Nam War, and the resettlement of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese into American society. The chapter also presents an overview of the demographic and socioeconomic differences that exist between different cohorts of Vietnamese arrivals. Specifically, similar to Cuban refugees who fled their communist government in the 1950s, the first wave of Vietnamese refugees was generally composed of the country’s elite class -- educated, relatively affluent, highly trained and skilled, and often having worked directly with the U.S. military before the communist takeover. Similarly, understanding these differences between unique waves of Vietnamese arrivals also leads us to differentiate the characteristics and experiences between the second generation, the 1.5 generation, and the emerging second generation -distinctions that will be paramount in subsequent chapters that explore the unique types of assimilation outcomes in more detail. Chapter Three, begins the empirical analysis on differences in structural and socioeconomic assimilation outcome differences in assimilation outcomes between Vietnamese Americans and other Asian American groups by examining socioeconomic assimilation. Specifically, the chapter analyzes three specific outcomes that represent socioeconomic assimilation -- logged income, the likelihood of working in a high skill occupation, and Duncan’s SEI score. Since socioeconomic assimilation, as the most “structural” type of incorporation into American society, is the type that underpins most of the other assimilation outcomes, this chapter places it first in the overall analysis. The chapter reviews existing research on socioeconomic assimilation in general and these three outcomes specifically as they relate to Vietnamese and other Asian Americans and immigrants. The analysis also distinguishes between the results for Asian men and women and between foreign-raised and U.S.-raised separately in order to begin fleshing out the unique characteristics that separate genders, nativities, and separate Asian ethnic groups and how they compare to each other in terms of achieving structural integration as indicated by socioeconomic attainment.

6


This interplay of individual-, community-, and structural-level processes is examined again in Chapter Four, where the focus is selfemployment/entrepreneurship and the question of the extent to which owning a business is indicative of being more or less assimilated. One of the most prominent topics in recent years in the study of race, ethnicity, and immigration has been the phenomenon of entrepreneurship among immigrants in general and Asians in particular. While much of this literature has highlighted the experiences of a few Asian groups (particularly Koreans), only occasionally has it systematically compared factors associated with the likelihood of being self-employed across the major Asian ethnic groups in order to determine to what extent being self-employed is associated with favorable versus less favorable socioeconomic characteristics. Nor has any research systematically compared these factors between Asian Americans raised within the U.S. versus those raised outside the U.S. The results of this analysis highlight the unique differences that exist along these distinct axes of ethnicity and nativity. Next comes Chapter Five, which deals with residential assimilation. More specifically, it examines the phenomena of suburban homeownership and residential segregation among Asian Americans. As much as other outcomes of assimilation, residential integration is a process that involves a complex interaction between individual-, community-, and structural-level factors to determine the likelihood of owning a house, housing values, levels of segregation from and exposure to Whites, and the formation of ethnic neighborhoods within census tracts, analyses for which are presented in the chapter. Residential assimilation continues the examination of outcomes that are not only determined by the interaction of multiple levels but also highlights the important role that ethnic communities play in influencing the extent to which specific Asian groups either remain close to their co-ethnics or leave the confines of an ethnic neighborhood to integrate more closely with “mainstream” American society. The final analytical chapter, Chapter Six, examines marital assimilation among Asian Americans, an outcome that simultaneously represents both an individual- and structural-level process. In

Introduction

7

analyzing the factors that are associated with the likelihood of having an endogamous, pan-Asian (Asian of a different ethnicity), or White spouse for U.S.-raised Asian ethnic groups, the chapter once again focuses on the dynamics of how multiple levels of human capital, social capital, and structural elements interact differently the various Asian groups and genders to influence the choice of marriage partner. For many racial/ethnic minority groups, marrying outside the group has become an increasingly prominent issue with potentially significant demographic, cultural, and political implications for decades to come as the offspring increasingly assert their growing numbers and uniqueness as multiracial and multiethnic Americans. Finally, the Conclusion chapter will bring together the major findings from the analytical chapters and summarize how the results fit together to highlight the differences among outcomes of assimilation for the different Asian American ethnic groups. Using the findings to emphasize the dynamic interaction of individual-, community-, and structural-level factors, the Conclusion will determine the extent to which Vietnamese Americans are less assimilated than other Asian American ethnic groups and how this varies by gender, nativity, or other demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. DATA AND METHODOLOGY Data Source Data for much of the analysis comes from the 2000 Census five-percent Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS). The 2000 5% PUMS represents a 1 in 20 stratified national random sample created by subsampling all households that received the census long form. With a sample size of 6,184,438 household and 14,081,466 person records, the 2000 PUMS is the best choice for systematic and comparative demographic analyses of racial/ethnic minority groups, in this case Asian Americans and is overwhelmingly favored by academic in many disciplines, statisticians, and policy analysts around the country and the world. While specific sample sizes will vary by the unique assimilation outcome in question and its accompanying criteria (to be detailed in the following chapters), in general they are large enough to facilitate robust and reliable analysis.

8


Nonetheless, the 2000 PUMS has several limitations that should be noted. The first is that while it and presents an accurate picture of all 50 states, geographically-identifiable data is limited to respondents residing in Super Public Use Microdata Areas (Super PUMAs) that contain at least 400,000 residents. In other words, while data on respondents living outside of Super PUMAs is included in the dataset, only those living inside Super PUMAs have geographic identifiable variables attached to their records that will allow us to identify the metropolitan area in which they live and whether they live inside a central city, suburb, or other sub-location. This limitation should not detract from the generalizability and validity for Asian American and Vietnamese American households because previous demographic research consistently point out that both groups overwhelmingly live in large metropolitan areas (Fong 1998; Rumbaut 1995; Rutledge 1992). The second major limitation of the 2000 PUMS data (and of all cross sectional data in general) is that since it only represents a “snapshot” of data at one particular time and therefore is not longitudinal, issues about causality and time sequence can arise. That is, census data cannot tell us whether an immigrant received a college degree before or after arriving in the U.S., or whether a respondent got married before or after owning a home, etc. Therefore, we must interpret regression results with the appropriate degree of caution. There will be some instances in which descriptive data from the 1980 and 1990 Integrated Public Use Microdata Samples (IPUMS) will be used to compare with 2000 data. The IPUMS also represents a five percent sample of the entire U.S. population and in most respects, is virtually identical to decennial PUMS data. Analysis will generally consist of descriptive statistics and multivariate regression on the various outcomes of assimilation. In three of the four categories of assimilation in the research, analysis will be performed on the U.S.raised and foreign-raised separately and on men and women separately. Analyses will also generally be limited to respondents who are at least 25 years of age (with the exception of marital assimilation, where the minimum age is 18) and to respondents who self-identify themselves as belonging to the following racial categories as one of their choices (since the 2000 Census allowed respondents to choose more than one

Introduction

9

racial identification) and without Hispanic origin: Asian Indian, Chinese (excluding Taiwanese), Filipino, Korean, or Vietnamese. Non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, Hispanics, and Japanese are further used as comparisons and/or marriage partners when appropriate. While there are other methods of classifying respondents by race/ethnicity such as using any combination of ancestry (first and/or second responses), birthplace, parent’s race/ancestry, and/or language, each of these also introduces its own potential sample errors and the need to make a series of potentially problematic qualifications due to specific circumstances. Therefore, the Census Bureau’s “race” variable remains the best, most consistent, and most commonly used, if slightly imperfect, choice for measuring ethnic origin. These five Asian American ethnic groups represents roughly 80% of all Asian Americans in the 2000 Census. The remaining 20% include Japanese Americans and other smaller Asian ethnic groups such as Hmong, Laotian, Taiwanese, etc. Japanese Americans are excluded as a comparison group (although they are included as potential marriage partners in the marital assimilation chapter) because there is very little immigration from Japan these days, making comparisons with other Asian groups based on immigrant characteristics rather difficult. Japanese Americans are also the only major Asian American group who saw their population actually decline from 1990 to 2000, suggesting that they are much more advanced in terms of assimilation, as large numbers intermarry and identify as other than Japanese. Smaller Asian ethnic groups such as Hmong, Laotian, Indonesians, etc. are also excluded because their relatively small sample sizes makes reliable analysis difficult. Finally, Pacific Islanders (Native Hawaiians, Samoans, Guamanians, etc.) are excluded because while they constitute a sizeable portion of the larger Asian Pacific American population, their cultural history and current political association as geographic possessions of the U.S. imply different social, cultural, political, historical, and economic dynamics in comparison to the five largest and more “conventional” Asian American ethnic groups discussed here. Finally, as much as possible, this analysis incorporates separate examinations for both men and women in an effort to distinguish gender processes as they relate to socioeconomic achievement and inequality. Numerous scholars point out that traditional demographic

10


analysis either subsumes women and men as one homogenous group or excludes women altogether (Amott and Matthaei 1991; England and Farkas 1986; Kibria 1994; Lee 1995; Loscocco and Leicht 1991). Especially when it comes to studies of racial/ethnic minorities where there has been marked historical and contemporary exclusion of detailed understandings of the contributions and achievements of women, this research elaborates on the need to consider processes of political, economic, and cultural assimilation separately for men and women so that the experiences and issues faced by women are no longer marginalized or ignored. Data Definitions and Operationalizations In addition to descriptive statistics, regression analyses will be performed on specific dependent variables in each of the four categories of assimilation outcomes. For virtually all regression models (but with combinations specific to each model), independent variables will include three set of factors, in addition to the standard measures of gender and age. The first set includes human capital measures such as categories of educational attainment and fluency in English. Specifically, a respondent is classified as “not proficient in English” if the respondent self-reports that s/he does not speak English or speaks English but not well. Other human capital measures include personal and family income (either in raw or logged form), being employed in a “high skill” occupation that includes professional, technical, and senior management positions (see Appendix A for a detailed listing), living under the poverty line, being a homeowner, and being employed in any of the following industries: professional services, garment, grocery/restaurant, personal services, or retail (again see Appendix A for specific listings of each). The last four industries will also sometimes be collapsed into one dummy variable called “enclave-associated” industry to reflect the predominance of these sectors among self-employed Asian Americans, especially those who are located within Asian ethnic enclaves in various metropolitan areas around the U.S.

Introduction

11

The second set of independent variables includes social capital measures that attempt to capture characteristics or dynamics that operate at the community or structural level and that may impact assimilation outcomes. These include being U.S.-born (a reflection of not just primary, but sole socialization within American society), being married with spouse present, family size, years in the U.S. and being a U.S. citizen (both as rough proxies for a certain degree of cultural assimilation), and two measures that represent the likelihood of participating within an ethnic enclave and/or relying to some degree on ethnic resources: being self-employed (incorporated or unincorporated) and living in the Los Angeles/Orange County, New York/Northeastern New Jersey, or San Francisco/San Jose Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSAs). These CMSAs contain by far the largest populations of Asian Americans in the U.S. and are frequently cited as locations in which Asian ethnic communities and economies flourish. The final set of independent variables include Asian ethnic group identity (Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Korean, or Vietnamese). These variables attempt to capture cultural elements that cannot otherwise be measured using aggregate Census data. Used in conjunction with the other two sets of independent variables, Asian ethnic identity is a rough proxy for elements of an ethnic group’s culture or history that more standard measures cannot capture. CONCLUSION While Asian Americans in general and Vietnamese Americans in particular are the fastest growing racial/ethnic groups in the U.S. (in terms of percentage growth) and are becoming increasingly integrated into mainstream American political, economic, and cultural institutions, in many ways they are still misunderstood. Part of the problem stems from the twin stereotypes that Asian Americans are basically all the same and that all Asian Americans are foreigners (and by implication, outsiders). Vietnamese Americans have the added challenge of overcoming a variety of potential negative consequences from their association with the Viet Nam War. In this context and using the latest and most complete data and standardized statistical analysis, this research will illuminate the experiences of Vietnamese Americans as

12


one of the newest ethnic groups to undergo the assimilation process in the United States. The implications of this research for academic scholarship into race/ethnicity and immigration are numerous. First, this study highlights the need to disaggregate separate ethnic groups out of a single racial category. As previously discussed, too often in the past, researchers have subsumed the variety of Asian Americans into one monolithic entity. Whether this was done intentionally or was a function of data limitations, the effect has been to marginalize potentially significant political, economic, historical, and cultural differences among unique Asian American ethnic groups and to confound the ultimate generalizability of any results and their practical application to the study of Asian American community dynamics. Second, this research illustrates the multifaceted nature of the assimilation process and indicates that researchers cannot discuss assimilation as just a single overall outcome. Rather, as this analysis explicates, there are multiple forms of assimilation, each of which is influenced by unique interactions among numerous political, economic, historical, and cultural factors. Scholars of race/ethnicity and immigration need to be mindful of these distinctions in order to accurately capture the multiple dimensions of assimilation and socioeconomic incorporation, not just individually as they have done in the past but collectively as each category of outcomes illuminates the larger context of assimilation. The implications for public policy and social service professionals are also numerous. The results of this research will highlight those areas in the lives of Vietnamese Americans in which more direct services may be needed or where there may still be mechanisms of inequality and discrimination at work, whether they pertain to education, occupational skills training, English proficiency, business loans or home mortgages, to name just a few. Once policymakers understand the institutional contexts of refugee and immigrant incorporation that emphasize the interplay of unique historical, economic, political, and cultural elements, they have the opportunity to formulate policies and legislation that will more accurately represent the experiences of Vietnamese Americans so that social services for

Introduction

13

them can be more effective. In addition, social service professionals can gain a more detailed appreciation of what ways the experiences and needs of Vietnamese Americans can differ from and be similar to other Asian American and immigrant groups with the goal of tailoring their outreach efforts and services to better meet their requirements. Recent history and contemporary demographic patterns demonstrate that ethnic minority and immigrant groups are increasingly becoming more prominent in various domains of American life. With this in mind, this research will serve not only to illuminate their group experiences and characteristics but to critically assess the nature of their interaction with social structures and institutions; and it will move beyond simple description and instead seek to predict the outcomes of intergroup, cross-cultural, and multilevel dynamics.


CHAPTER ONE

The History of Asian Immigration and Assimilation The early history of Asian Americans inevitably is a history of adaptation, resistance, and assimilation. The first Asians arrived in the U.S. in the mid-1700s, when sailors from the Philippines settled into what is now Louisiana. Later around 1840, to make up for the shortage of slaves from Africa, the British and Spanish brought over slaves or “coolies” from China, India, and the Philippines to islands in the Caribbean, Peru, Ecuador, and other countries in South America. However, the first large-scale immigration of Asians into the U.S. didn’t happen until 1848, when gold was discovered in California. The Gold Rush was one of several pull factors that led many Chinese to come to the U.S. in hopes of finding their fortune and returning home wealthy. However, there were also several push factors that drove many immigrants to leave China. The most important factor was economic hardship due to the growing British dominance over China, after Britain defeated China in the Opium War of 1839-1842. In addition to prospecting for gold in California, many Chinese also came as contract laborers to Hawai’i to work in sugarcane plantations. While in California, Chinese miners experienced one of the first instances of discrimination in the form of the Foreign Miner Tax that was theoretically to be collected from every foreign miner but in reality, was only collected from the Chinese, despite the multitude of miners from European countries who were prospecting there as well. The Chinese also worked as small time merchants, and starting in 1865, as railroad workers on the famous Transcontinental Railroad project that connected California and Nebraska. At its peak, 12,000 Chinese worked for the Central Pacific line, many involved in some of the dirtiest and most dangerous jobs. About 1,000 Chinese died during the project as a result of avalanches and explosive accidents as they carved their way through the Sierra Mountains. After the completion of the railroad in 1869 and as they returned to California, the Chinese increasingly became the targets of racial attacks and discriminatory legislation because their labor was no longer needed and Whites began seeing them as an economic threat. This anti-Chinese movement, which was accompanied by numerous anti-Chinese riots, 15

16


lynchings, and murders (including Tacoma, Washington and most famously at Rock Springs, Wyoming), culminated with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. This act barred virtually all immigration from China and prevented all Chinese immigrants already in the U.S. from becoming U.S. citizens. For the first time in U.S. history, a specific ethnic group was singled out and forbidden to enter the U.S. Because they were forbidden from owning land, intermarrying with Whites, owning homes, working in many occupations, getting an education, and living in certain parts of a city or entire cities, the Chinese were, in effect, forced to retreat into their own isolated communities as a matter of survival. At the least, these first Chinatowns allowed them to make a living among themselves. This is where the enduring cultural images of Chinese restaurants and laundry shops, Japanese gardeners and produce stands, and Korean grocery stores began. Many scholars point out that these modern patterns of work and employment among Asian Americans did not begin out of any natural or instinctual desire on the part of Asian workers, but as a response to prejudice, exclusion, and institutional discrimination (Chan 1991; Okihiro 1994; Takaki 1998). On the individual level, the mechanisms of vitriolic prejudice, overt discrimination, and blatant racism had devastating effects for Asian communities, families, and individuals. Since husbands were prohibited from bringing over their wives and families from China, chronic loneliness, despair, and depression became a common theme in their lives. The few women who were allowed to immigrate to the U.S. from Asia frequently were sold into prostitution, even after laws were passed to restrict their entry into the U.S., with the targeted clientele being the very same lonely and desperate Asian men (Chan 1991). In addition, numerous anti-miscegenation laws prohibited Chinese and other Asian men from marrying White women, thereby exacerbating the social isolation that enveloped many Chinese communities. The Japanese followed as the next Asian group to immigrate to the U.S. in large numbers. They initially came to Hawai’i as cheaper replacements for Chinese workers beginning around 1890. Japan also experienced economic and military domination by the west, which began with Admiral Matthew Perry’s famous arrival in Tokyo Bay in

History of Asian Immigration & Assimilation

17

1853 with his “black ships,” threatening war if Japan did not open itself up for trade with the west. Eventually, Japan’s economy became dependent on the west and ordinary citizens struggled to survive economically. But unlike workers from China, Japanese workers were actively recruited to work in Hawai’i and the U.S. and were initially closely supervised by the Japanese government to insure that they were prospering. Also unlike the Chinese, Japanese workers were mainly concentrated in agricultural jobs. Nonetheless, the Japanese eventually received the same type of discriminatory treatment the Chinese had received earlier, which culminated in 1907 Gentlemen’s Agreement. Japan agreed to stop issuing passports for Japanese workers to go to the U.S., even though this did not seriously reduce the amount of Japanese immigrants coming into the U.S. The Japanese were subjected many of the same discriminatory laws and prejudices that the Chinese endured earlier, including restrictions on their rights to own land, become citizens, and reunite with wives and families. However in most respects, the level of discrimination was somewhat mitigated by the active involvement of the Japanese government in the treatment of its citizens in the U.S. Although Japanese men had more options than their Chinese counterparts in terms of establishing intergenerational roots in the U.S., many resorted to enlisting the help of relatives in Japan to arrange marriages from afar for them because of numerous restrictions negotiated between Japan and the U.S. This led to the historical phenomenon of Japanese “picture brides” who were married in the absence of the grooms, applied for passports, and sailed to America to meet their husbands for the first time (Chan 1991). Also like the Chinese, the Japanese did not sit idly by while they were being discriminated against. In fact, history shows that, in addition to filing federal court cases, they organized many demonstrations and strikes, led many boycotts, published many books and essays, and enlisted the support of many sympathetic whites. Eventually, other Asian groups such as the Koreans and Filipinos followed the Chinese and Japanese into the U.S., (Chan 1991; Hing 1993). Approximately 7,000 Koreans came to the U.S. before 1951, and they mainly worked in the sugarcane plantations of Hawai’i. Also, roughly 130,000 Filipinos came to the U.S. before 1935. They were helped by their legal status as residents of a U.S. territory and they too

18


worked mainly in agriculture. Nonetheless, Filipinos were the Asian group most negatively affected by rigid anti-miscegenation laws. Despite the fact that their ethnic identity and racial identification as Asians were frequently a matter of debate and disagreement among government officials, Filipino men were routinely harassed about their relationships with White women. This involved numerous legal actions and legislative proceedings on both sides and it was not until 1948 that California’s anti-miscegenation laws were declared unconstitutional and 1967 until all similar statutes disappeared from state law books across the country (Chan 1991). During the period before 1940, these Asian groups tried as best as they could, given the restrictions placed upon them, to make a living for themselves and to become as integrated into American life as possible. However, everything changed when World War II started, especially for Asian Americans. The attack of the Japanese navy on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 set off an overwhelming wave of racism, prejudice, and ignorance directed specifically at Japanese Americans but also felt by other Asian American groups (Chan 1991). Combined with falsified reports of espionage and lobbying by White farmers in California, this racist paranoia culminated in President Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066. This effectively revoked the rights of Japanese Americans as U.S. citizens and eventually led to about 120,000 Japanese Americans being rounded up and incarcerated in prison camps in nine states. The lives of Japanese Americans were devastated -- not only was their economic well-being destroyed and their emotional security shattered, but their cultural traditions were severely damaged as well. As numerous scholars have documented, the traditional family structures of the Japanese were severely damaged as they were made to share virtually all aspects of their private lives in communal conditions, including taking showers, bathing, using the restrooms, eating, and sleeping (Chan 1991). In this context, the strong family bonds that characterized Japanese American families slowly withered away as Japanese American children frequently chose to dine with their friends rather than with their parents. Needless to say, depression and despair were common in these prison camps as Japanese Americans not only


19

had to grapple with the pain of their imprisonment but also with the fundamental alteration of their cultural traditions (Takaki 1998). Yet, after the war began, Chinese Americans, and to a lesser extent those of Korean, Filipino, and South Asian descent, began to be portrayed in a much more positive light. For example, respondents to a 1942 Gallup poll characterized the Chinese as “hardworking, honest, brave, religious, intelligent, and practical.” In 1943, the U.S. also revoked the provisions of the Chinese Exclusion Act passed 61 years earlier and began allowing a token 105 to immigrate annually, with Chinese-born residents in the U.S. finally receiving the right to be naturalized citizens. However, after the war finally ended in 1945, the US’s attitudes towards the Japanese and Chinese once again flipflopped. After the communists assumed control, China became an enemy while Japan, rebuilding under the direction of the U.S. military, was seen as hardworking, friendly, and intelligent. Reflecting this change of opinion, Japanese Americans (and all other immigrants from Asia) officially received the right to become naturalized U.S. citizens in 1952. During the 1950s and 1960s, Asian Americans focused on rebuilding their lives, developing their communities, and trying to assimilate as best as possible. It helped that the U.S. was experiencing an economic boom, which not only provided the Asian American groups with new opportunities, but also gave the native White population enough opportunities and social mobility so that they didn’t see Asian Americans as economic threats (Chan 1991; Takaki 1998). However, a new and important piece of legislation was passed in 1965 that again fundamentally changed the landscape of Asian America. THE NEW ERA OF ASIAN IMMIGRATION During the early 1960s, at the height of the Cold War, Presidents Kennedy and Johnson tried to develop domestic and international policies that could be used as psychological tools against communism. These policies would be combined with President Johnson’s “Great Society” anti-poverty and civil rights policies and therefore designed to show the rest of the world that the U.S. was indeed the land of equal opportunity, as opposed to the totalitarian oppression of communist countries. This led to the passage of the 1965 Hart-Celler Immigration

20


Act. The Act abolished the restrictive national origins regulations originally passed in 1921 and 1924 in favor of a quota and preference system. Priority was now given to “family reunification” so that U.S. citizens and permanent residents could sponsor the following types of immigrants in this order of preference: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Unmarried children under 21 years of age, spouses, and parents of U.S. citizens Spouses and unmarried children of permanent residents Professionals, scientists, and artists “of exceptional ability” Married children over 21 years of age and their spouses and children of U.S. citizens Siblings and their spouses and children of U.S. citizens Workers in occupations with labor shortages Political refugees

Each country in the eastern hemisphere was given a quota of 20,000 but children under 21, spouses, and parents of U.S. citizens were exempt from this quota. Also, countries in the western hemisphere would not be subject to any quotas. Seventy-four percent of the eastern hemisphere’s quota was allotted to the four family reunification preferences, 20% of the quota was given to meeting the two occupational preferences, and six percent was allotted to political refugees. Immigrants admitted using the second preference could also petition to bring over their parents (who would not be subject to numerical quotas). The third and sixth preferences would have to be verified and approved by the U.S. Department of Labor. There was also a non-preference category for immigrants who would invest at least $40,000 in a business once they came to the U.S. Also, in 1980, the seventh preference for refugees was replaced by more comprehensive legislation that expanded the quotas for refugees, in response to mass refugee migrations for Viet Nam (to be discussed later) and other countries around the world. These preferences were structured to encourage U.S. citizens to sponsor other family members as new immigrants. At first, the U.S.


21

government did not expect a large increase in Asian immigrants because there weren’t enough Asians in the U.S. to make massive use of the family reunification provisions. At the time, Asian Americans were only 0.5% of total U.S. population. Therefore, U.S. officials expected immigration from Europe to account for the vast majority of the new immigrants (Chan 1991; Heer 1996; Hing 1993). However, the formation and development of the European Common Market (the precursor of the European Union) in the decades following World War II allowed workers to cross European borders much more easily to find work. At the same time, Europe was experiencing its own post-war economic boom, so there was little incentive for Europeans to immigrate elsewhere. Some also suggest that because most European immigrants had come to the U.S. much before the 1920s, there was not a huge population of European immigrants in the U.S. with immediate family left in Europe to reunite (Chan 1991; Hing 1993). By contrast, Asian Americans and Asian immigrants saw this as an excellent opportunity to bring over family members. The first large group of immigrants from Asia who were admitted as a result of these provisions was from the third and sixth preferences, namely professionals and skilled workers. In turn, these immigrants then began to apply for U.S. citizenship and, after roughly seven years (the amount of time usually required to finalize the naturalization process), began sponsoring their families and relatives, who did likewise, and so on. As a result of this series of events, starting in the early 1970s, immigration from Asia began to increase significantly. Altogether, of the 19,427,440 immigrants who have come to U.S. since 1971, 6,674,086 of them (or about 34.4%) are from Asia. Subsequent sociological research and a visit to any large central city have shown and will show such Asian immigrants have revitalized many urban centers, transforming them from a declining and neglected façade of empty storefronts to vibrant ethnic communities, complete with a vast array of shops, restaurants, immigrant services, and steady flows of tourist traffic (Alba and Logan 1993; Logan, Alba and Zhang 2002). Within this context and the dynamic development of Asian American communities throughout urban America, events overseas were taking place that would result in the arrival of one of the most controversial newcomers to the U.S. in its history.

22


THE DYNAMICS AND OUTCOMES OF ASSIMILATION Once a new ethnic group arrives in any new environment, inevitably it undergoes some type of adjustment or assimilation process. However, assimilation does not have to be limited strictly to immigrants. This research uses a broad definition of assimilation to include immigrant and non-immigrant ethnic groups who may not be fully incorporated into the mainstream institutions of American society. In this case, I refer specifically to Asian American groups and in particular, Vietnamese Americans, regardless of their nativity, citizenship status, length of residence, legal status, or I.N.S. classification (i.e., refugees versus immigrants). Sociologists have built an impressive research tradition that examines and analyzes numerous types and outcomes of this adjustment and adaptation process. One of the most influential pieces of literature on the outcomes of intergroup contact was Park’s (Park 1928) race relations cycle in which he identified four stages that new immigrant groups progress through as they adjust to American society. First comes contact, where groups first encounter each other. Second comes competition, in which groups contend with each other in trying to gain access to scarce political, economic, and social resources. Next is accommodation, when different groups begin to get accustomed to each other, start to cooperate with one another, and adapt to each other in supposedly peaceful and constructive ways. The final stage is assimilation, which Park defined as “a process of interpenetration and fusion in which person and groups acquire the memories, sentiments, and attitudes of other persons or groups and, by sharing their experience and history, are incorporated with them in a common cultural life” (Park 1928:26) In contemporary times, Park’s typology may seem to be rather simple or even outdated but nonetheless it still provides a useful foundation that frames much of the current research into assimilation (see Alba and Nee 2003). Another significant contribution to classic assimilation research is Milton Gordon’s (Gordon 1964) identification of the different types of assimilation. From the point of view of the racial/ethnic minority or immigrant, the first type is behavioral


23

assimilation, otherwise known as “acculturation.” This takes place when s/he absorbs the cultural norms, beliefs, and behavior patterns of the “host” society -- in effect, when one begins to act “American.” The second type of assimilation is that of structural assimilation. This occurs when the racial/ethnic minority or immigrant and his/her descendants in later generations enter and become integrated into the formal social, political, economic, and cultural institutions of the host country (“secondary relationships”) and develops numerous longlasting personal friendships with the members of the majority group (“primary relationships”). Gordon also identified assimilation from the view of the majority group. He theorized that there are three possible outcomes of assimilation. The first is the classic and still popular “melting pot” ideal, when different racial/ethnic groups come together and out of this interaction comes a new culture that incorporates elements from all groups into one (often represented as A+B+C=D). A second outcome can be “Anglo conformity,” which is when the minority or immigrant is taught that the norms, values, and institutions of the majority group are superior and that they should adopt them in order to be accepted, again often symbolized as A+B+C=A. Finally, a third possible outcome is “cultural pluralism.” This occurs when the different racial/ethnic groups keep their unique cultural norms and behavior, while still sharing common national values, goals, and institutions -- A+B+C=A+B+C. Gordon concluded that up to that point in American history, Anglo conformity best represented the history of assimilation in America (Gordon, 1963). Other sociologists present slightly different views on how assimilation works. These other theories fall into three general outcomes. One is straight-line or traditional assimilation, in which the passage of time and the succession of generations lead to increasing economic, cultural, political, and residential integration into American society (Alba 1990; Gans 1979). On the opposite side is a second outcome that emphasizes the resilience of ethnicity. This is often represented when later generations revive old cultural traditions and choose to be somewhat less assimilated in favor of asserting a rediscovered or newly created sense of uniqueness based on ethnic difference (Hirschman 1996; Lieberson and Waters 1988; Waters 1990; Yancey, Ericksen and Juliani 1976). This is best represented by the

24


famous quote, “What the son wishes to forget, the grandson wishes to remember.” The third general outcome is the newest concept in the volumes of sociological research -- segmented assimilation. This particular model can have different outcomes depending on different societal and grouplevel circumstances. For example, one path occurs when a new immigrant group experiences downward assimilation the longer they are in the U.S. because they become associated with and begin to experience the same racial discrimination that U.S.-born Blacks experience. In other words, they can assimilate into the same kind of low-income situations that Blacks experience. Some sociologists suggest Haitians in New York City and Mexicans in Los Angeles as two recent examples (Neckerman, Carter and Lee 1999; Portes and Zhou 1993; Rumbaut 1994). However, a second type of segmented assimilation involves the rapid economic or occupational advancement of the immigrant group or family but with a deliberate attempt to maintain their traditional ethnic values, norms, and behavior. The clearest examples are well-educated and wealthy Asian immigrants who settle into middle- and upper-class suburbs that were once exclusively White and then proceed to establish their own ethnic enclaves. This is happening in many parts of Los Angeles, such as Monterey Park, Pasadena, Hacienda Heights, and San Gabriel (Gibson 1989; Horton 1995; Portes and Zhou 1993; Saito 1998). Other sociologists focus on the factors that account for why certain immigrant groups assimilate faster than others. Their research suggests that three circumstances play a large role in this process. The first is racial difference. Many European immigrants who came to the U.S. back in the 1800s and early 1900s, especially those from southern, central, and eastern Europe, did experience prejudice and discrimination. But ultimately, because they were of the same race as the majority Anglo Saxon group, it was relatively minor compared to the discrimination experienced by non-White immigrants, American Indians, and Blacks (Lieberson 1980; Portes and Rumbaut 1996; Steinberg 1989, but see Jacobson 1999). As a result, although many initially encountered interpersonal and structural barriers, these


25

European immigrants ultimately benefited from their phenotypic similarity to the dominant Anglo Saxon white majority and eventually parlayed that advantage to help them incorporate and assimilate into “White” American society. Scholars have also identified the structure of the economy as a second factor that affects how quickly groups assimilate. In times of national economic expansion and prosperity, there is a sufficient quantity of occupational and economic opportunities for most of the population. However, when the economy begins to decline, bringing with it higher unemployment, lower wages, recession, and other interrelated outcomes, there is more economic competition between workers and therefore, more hostility toward minorities and immigrants who are frequently seen as driving down wages, employment chances, and overall quality of life (Bonacich 1972; Bonacich 1989; Portes and Rumbaut 1996; Wilson 1987; Wilson 1996). A third factor in explaining why some immigrants assimilate faster than others is class difference. Some ethnic and immigrant groups to have higher levels of education, job skills, and English proficiency, and other measures of human and social capital than others. This in turn gives them specific advantages in achieving socioeconomic success faster than others (Chan 1991; Hing 1993; Okihiro 1994). These three factors inevitably interact with the external context of how groups associate with the political, social, and economic institutions that becomes a part of their new lives in the U.S. to ultimately determine their assimilation outcomes. THE MULTI-LEVEL PROCESS OF ASSIMILATION Park, Gordon, and other early pioneers of assimilation theory provided us with many useful concepts in establishing a sociological foundation for and framing of the research on how minority and immigrant groups become incorporated into American society. At the same time, their conceptions about the outcomes of assimilation primarily rely on individual-level or at times group-level processes. That is, the question of whether or not a minority or immigrant group becomes assimilated into a larger group ultimately depends on the extent to which the group accepts the fundamental norms and values of the mainstream group

26


and/or to what extent members of the mainstream group accept those from the minority or immigrant group into their interpersonal ranks. What seems to be missing is a full consideration of the macrostructural components of assimilation and how ecological shifts in the economic, political, social, and demographic structure frame and ultimately affect the interactions of assimilator and assimilatee. To that extent, the present research incorporates a comprehensive accounting of these structural factors that interrelate with contemporaneous individual- and group-level processes in determining the outcomes of assimilation. This macrostructural focus arises from recent attempts at innovating the study of intergroup relations. One such effort comes from the recent work of Alba and Nee (2003) who point out that, as a canonical concept, assimilation has received quite a bit of criticism in recent years. For example, they argue that while recent scholars more or less accept the basic conceptual framework laid out by Park and Gordon, contemporary sociologists take issue with much of the inherent assumptions that underlie traditional assimilation theory. Specifically, traditional assimilation theories have been charged with being hopelessly outdated and ideologically corrupt since they have in the past implicitly imposed ethnocentric norms and values upon ethnic minority groups. The experiences of recent immigrants, in particular those from nonEuropean countries, are used as examples and case studies to expose gaps in traditional assimilation theory as it relates to acculturation, residential integration, occupational mobility, and other measurements of assimilation (Alba and Nee 1999; Alba and Nee 2003; Barkan 1995; Kazal 1995). Nonetheless, Alba and Nee argue that while many of the criticisms about the ethnocentric interpretations and normative impositions of traditional assimilation theory are valid, the fundamental idea of linguistic, behavioral, socioeconomic, and spatial incorporation of minority groups and immigrants through the passage of time and succeeding generations still has strong merit, although different groups with different characteristics undergo the assimilation process at different rates. They emphasize that by broadening some of the core concepts of this social process, the basic tenets of assimilation are still


27

valuable in understanding intergroup relations. In particular, Alba and Nee point to Shibutani and Kwan’s (1965) cogent analysis of the ecological structures of ethnic stratification as a useful model for framing the contemporary context of assimilation. Shibutani and Kwan’s research focuses on the construction of ethnic stratification at the structural level and how environmental variables or ecological changes such as technological innovation, demographic shifts, and the development of new ideologies and group level consciousnesses contribute to a decline in “social distance,” otherwise characterized as the level of social difference or stratification between ethnic groups (Alba and Nee 1999; 2003). As Alba and Nee put it, [C]learly any analysis of the potential for assimilation in the United States, or anywhere else for that matter, cannot rely solely on confidence in processes of individual-level assimilation alone but must pay attention to macroscopic processes rooted in population ecology and to how these impinge on prospects for assimilation (1999:145). Similarly, there have been other recent attempts to expand the conventional discussion about intergroup relations. In particular, the research of Horton and Thomas (1998) and Horton, et al. (Horton et al. 2000) emphasizes the development of a new paradigm called “critical demography” that expands upon traditional demographic research to incorporate in-depth and bold explications of how power and social structures impact population dynamics and vice versa. In applying this paradigm to the case of the Black population, Horton and his collaborators suggest that demographic changes in the population of ethnic minorities interact with changes in the social structure to reinforce, perpetuate, and exacerbate ethnic inequalities. As applied to the discussion of assimilation, the critical demography perspective emphasizes the need to explain the social structure and institutional contexts that frame the interaction of minority groups with American society and to predict the likelihood of certain demographic outcomes based on this examination. Further, critical demography encourages us to challenge commonly accepted notions and explanations in favor of a reflective critique of the nature of demographic analysis.

28


These intellectual efforts to link intergroup outcomes with structural-level dynamics intersect nicely with the earlier tradition of explaining racial/ethnic inequalities on the macrostructural level. This is exemplified by the research of such scholars as Blalock (1967) who emphasized the connection between perceived threat and minority population size; Blauner (1972), who explicated the societal mechanisms that reinforce and perpetuate racial exploitation, control, and privilege; and Bonacich (1972; 1984), who delineated how economic competition exacerbates ethnic stratification. Taken together, these scholars’ work provides a solid conceptual foundation upon which this research can examine the assimilation outcomes of Vietnamese Americans and other Asian American ethnic groups. Their emphasis on the structural factors and macrosociological contexts that affect linguistic, socioeconomic, behavioral, and residential integration will prove to be useful in identifying and analyzing the different characteristics of these Asian American groups and the multiple levels of how these ethnic groups interface with the institutions of American society. The final point that needs discussion is the question of what exactly is the goal of assimilation. In other words, is there a single social entity into which minorities and immigrants are being assimilated into, some unified American core culture? If so, is that entity the conventional White middle class? Or are we looking at an evolving set of multidimensional assimilation outcomes that combines traditional normative definitions of being “American” with an ethnic pluralism that accepts and even encourages multiple avenues of assimilation outcomes? To begin our analysis, we now turn to detailing the data and methodology which we will use to answer these and other questions relating to distinguishing between the different assimilation outcomes among the major Asian American ethnic groups.

CHAPTER TWO

Vietnamese Americans: History and Context Viet Nam’s2 history goes back long before there was any Viet Nam War. In fact, several scholars and historians argue that in light of Viet Nam’s history of resistance to foreign powers, the Viet Nam War was just another incarnation and manifestation of the Vietnamese people’s fierce determination to remain free and autonomous from external forces trying to dominate it (Caputo 1996; Langguth 2000; Mann 2001). Through over 20 centuries of conflict, the Vietnamese honed their guerilla warfare tactics in order to fight and defeat numerically superior opponents and to remain independent. The Vietnamese nation was founded in 208 B.C. when a Chinese general, Trieu Da, conquered and consolidated separate kingdoms and formed the new nation of “Nam Viet.” The next 100 or so years saw much conflict between the country’s rulers and the Han emperors of China. Finally, in 111 B.C., Nam Viet was conquered and incorporated into the Chinese empire. Thus began the Vietnamese people’s tradition of fighting to remain free and independent. For the next 19 centuries, the people of Viet Nam continually struggled against the Chinese for their independence. The first Vietnamese rebellion occurred in 39 A.D. and was led by the legendary Trung sisters. They successfully drove out the Chinese and the nation lived free from Chinese rule until three years later when Viet Nam was reconquered. This next period of Chinese domination lasted until 539 when a Vietnamese scholar, Ly Bon, again drove out the Chinese rulers, only to have Viet Nam reinvaded a few years later. The Vietnamese people would continue to resist the rule of China (which renamed the nation “Annam”). The Chinese introduced many important agricultural, technical, and educational innovations to benefit of the Vietnamese people. However, the imposition of Chinese culture, customs, language, political institutions, and at times cruel oppression and exploitation of the nation ultimately crystallized the Vietnamese 2

“Viet Nam” is spelled here using two words instead of one word, as is more conventional, because it more accurately represents the country’s geographic and sociocultural history that has traditionally separated the landscape and people of the northern mountainous areas with the southern lowland areas.

29

30


people’s fierce desire to be free and independent, at all costs. This desire was finally realized in 939, as the Tang dynasty in China was falling into decline. The Vietnamese used this as an opportunity to again fight for their independence. General Ngo Quyen successfully drove out the Chinese rulers and established the first of the “Great Dynasties” of Viet Nam that managed to remain largely independent of all foreign powers for the next 944 years. Beginning in the 1700s, the first sustained contact with westerners occurred, led primary by French missionaries. By the mid 1800s, they had gained a lot of influence in Vietnamese politics. At the same time, suspicion and resentment toward them by many Vietnamese were growing as well. Cultural and political clashes between these two elements became frequent and precipitated France’s invasion of Viet Nam. Historian identify several reasons for the French invasion. First, there were incidents where some French missionaries were expelled or even killed. Second, as France was competing against other European powers for economic and military superiority, France wanted to secure more strategic geographic positions to promote its international trade and capitalism. Finally, the Vietnamese leadership could not decide whether it was best for the country to remain strictly Confucianist and isolated or to begin modernizing. These all led to Napoleon III’s order for his navy to invade Viet Nam in July 1857. Because the Vietnamese lacked the weapons and technology to effectively resist the new western invaders, their leaders had little choice but to eventually sign peace treaties with France in 1862. This treaty gave control of southern Viet Nam to France, which was then renamed “Cochinchina.” However, it would take another 21 years before the French were able to finally conquer northern Viet Nam. After doing so in 1883, they renamed the region “Tonkin” and combined it with Cochinchina and central Viet Nam (renamed “Annam”) to create the French colony known as “Indochina.” As a colonized nation, Viet Nam’s natural resources were exploited, its people were treated with disdain and impoverished, and its leaders were rendered powerless. Resistance movements began to develop almost immediately. But the first notable movement against the French was that of the Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang Party. They were encouraged

Vietnamese Americans: History & Context

31

and inspired by Japan’s defeat of Russia in 1904, the Kuomintang Revolution in China in 1911 against the British, and the Russian Revolution in 1917. Within this context, a young revolutionary named Nguyen That Thanh (alias Nguyen Ai Quoc), who later became known as Ho Chi Minh, began studying with Russian and Chinese communists on the techniques of politics, warfare, and power. He formed the Indochinese Communist Party in 1930, which also became known as the Viet Minh. With the Vietnamese Nationalist Party that was formed in 1927, these revolutionary organizations carried out sporadic rebellions that helped to raise the consciousness of the Vietnamese people and reignite their spirit of fierce independence and freedom. Even during the Japanese occupation of Viet Nam during World War II, both the Nationalists and Communists were building their underground intelligence and guerrilla networks. After Japan was defeated, Ho Chi Minh and his communist forces used the chaos and political vacuum to secure as much territory as possible in advance of negotiations about Viet Nam’s future. After these negotiations with France failed in 1949, the Nationalists and Communists agreed to fight together against the French. That year, France recognized the establishment of an independent “State of Viet Nam” under the control of former Vietnamese Emperor Bao Dai, but still retained controlled over foreign and military affairs. Ho Chi Minh denounced this as an illegitimate puppet government. The U.S. officially recognized Bao Dai’s government but after Mao Zedong’s Chinese communists defeated the Nationalist Kuomintang Chinese in 1950, China and the Soviet Union recognized Ho Chi Minh as Viet Nam’s legitimate leader. China and the Soviet Union also began assisting Ho Chi Minh and his forces by sending supplies and weaponry. With the assistance of China and the Soviet Union, Ho Chi Minh’s communist leanings became formalized. Concurrently and in response to the growing involvement of China and the Soviet Union, the U.S. began providing Bao Dai’s government and French forces with military advisors and weaponry. Although the French forces had a larger fighting force and superior military hardware, Ho Chi Minh’s resistance forces (under the leadership of General Vo Nguyen Giap) successfully used guerilla warfare tactics to wear down the French. In the spring of 1954, arrangements for peace talks between the two sides were being made. In anticipation of such

32


negotiations, the French sought to capture as much territory as possible in order to improve their negotiating power. However, before such talks took place, the French were finally defeated after the battle of Dien Bien Phu on May 8, 1954. THE TEN THOUSAND DAY WAR Although Viet Nam was now free and independent, it again became divided as negotiators from France, the U.S., China, the Soviet Union, and Viet Nam agreed to divide the nation in half at the 17th parallel. The communists took control of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam in the north while the nationalists controlled the Republic of South Viet Nam in the south. Under the terms of the peace accord, the people of Viet Nam had one year to move to the other half of the country, if they so chose. As a result, about one million Vietnamese who had previously lived in the northern half of Viet Nam chose to abandon their livelihood to move to the south in order to live in a democratic society, without communist control. Conversely, only about 10,000 southerners moved the other way into northern Viet Nam. The agreement also called for general elections in 1956 to unify the country. However, these elections never took place. Instead, a new and even more devastating war emerged. In South Viet Nam, the repressive policies of South Vietnamese president Ngo Dinh Diem alienated many Vietnamese citizens and the U.S. military and Ngo was ultimately assassinated in 1963. Subsequent regimes did not have any more popular support but were firmly entrenched, due to both the South Vietnamese and U.S. militaries (Griffiths 2001; Kaiser 2000; Langguth 2000). The increasing number and intensity of insurrection activities by communists in both the north and south led the U.S. to fear that if Viet Nam were to become communist, it would produce a “domino effect” in which other countries in the area would also fall to communism. The U.S. feared that this scenario would seriously threaten its political, military, and economic interests on an international scale. Therefore, U.S. leaders felt stronger and more direct actions were needed to fight this threat. Their opportunity for full and direct confrontation came after the U.S.


33

destroyer Maddox was attacked by the North Vietnamese on August 2, 1964. As a result, President Johnson succeeded in passing the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that effectively authorized full-scale U.S. military intervention in Viet Nam. By the end of 1965, 180,000 U.S. troops were fighting in Viet Nam and the number reached its peak of 540,000 by 1969 (Caputo 1996; Kaiser 2000; Mann 2001). The U.S. believed that its superior weapons and military technology would easily overwhelm the communist forces. Conversely, the communists once again relied on guerrilla tactics perfected over centuries of fighting superior forces and the growing support of the Vietnamese people. The U.S. military did not help its cause by committing a growing number of brutalities and atrocities against Vietnamese civilians (e.g., My Lai, Thanh Phong, and the “Tiger Force” activities), indiscriminately bombing the countryside and mountains, planting untold numbers of land and sea mines, and using toxic chemicals such as Agent Orange to deforest the countryside. All these actions ultimately devastated the lands and lives of countless Vietnamese citizens (Caputo 1996; Griffiths 2001). Opposition to American involvement in Viet Nam in the U.S. was also increasing. The anti-war movement was bolstered by the Têt (Vietnamese Lunar New Year) Offensive that began on January 30, 1968. Communist forces launched simultaneous surprise attacks in 36 major South Vietnamese cities. While the communist forces were ultimately defeated, the offensive succeeded in swaying the public opinion of many people in the U.S. who now felt that the war was going to be long, protracted, expensive, perhaps even immoral, and might not even be winnable. After President Nixon’s orders to limit and then halt bombing in 1969, the first peace talks took place between the U.S. and North Viet Nam. This led to the first withdrawals of U.S. troops from Viet Nam and the new program whereby the South Vietnamese forces would gradually assume all military responsibilities for their defense. However, the fighting again escalated when the U.S. and South Vietnamese forces expanded their military actions into neighboring Cambodia. After Richard Nixon was reelected President in 1972, he fulfilled his promise to begin withdrawing U.S. ground troops but at the same time, he ordered that aerial “carpet” bombings and the mining of North Vietnamese harbors be intensified. Finally, on January 27, 1973, a

34


peace accord was signed that called for an immediate cease fire, for all U.S. fighting forces to be withdrawn, and for South Viet Nam to determine its own future. Nonetheless, fighting between the North and the South continued, although without the involvement of U.S. troops. When the U.S. drastically reduced military aid to South Viet Nam in August 1974, its defeat was all but guaranteed. In the spring of 1975, the North launched a full-scale offensive into South Viet Nam. This campaign quickly culminated in the surrender of the South Vietnamese government, the capture of South Viet Nam’s capital of Saigon (which was later renamed “Ho Chi Minh City”) on April 30, 1975, the frantic departure of all remaining U.S. personnel, and the beginning of the escape of hundreds of thousands of people from their lands and lives in South Viet Nam. In fact, the dramatic saga of the Vietnamese refugees only begins with their escape out of Viet Nam -- the other part of course, if their arrival in the U.S. and their adjustment to American life. In analyzing this aspect of Vietnamese American assimilation, we should remember that these outcomes are influenced by the unique demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of different types of Vietnamese arrivals and cohorts. In many cases, it is was these differences that directly affected their initial settlement and continue to influence their ongoing assimilation into American society. THE REFUGEE EXODUS FROM VIET NAM The First Wave of Refugees U.S. history has seen the arrival of large numbers of immigrants and even refugees before. However, until the end of the Viet Nam War, none were the direct result of a controversial and divisive war that the U.S. ultimately lost. Indeed, the arrival of the Vietnamese into the American political, economic, and cultural landscape was a unique event in American history. Within this context, however, different types and waves of Vietnamese refugees reflected different histories and experiences. Distinguishing between the different waves of Vietnamese refugees and immigrants, each with its own unique


35

demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, will allow us to better understand how these individual- and group-level characteristics can lead to different assimilation outcomes down the line. The escape of approximately 125,000 citizens from Viet Nam in the months after April 1975 was just the first of several waves of refugees that would eventually settle in the U.S., as shown in Table 2.1. Historical analysis shows us that as the fall of Saigon was approaching in the spring of 1975, U.S. authorities at first planned to evacuate only 3,839 American citizens and their dependents and the 17,600 Vietnamese citizens and their families who worked directly for the U.S. government. Nonetheless, the volatile and rapidly deteriorating political situation in Viet Nam, increasing pressures from sympathetic media portrayals, and arguments within the administration that the U.S. had a humanitarian obligation to “rescue” its former allies eventually led President Ford to establish the Interagency Task Force (IATF) on April 17, 1975, whose task was to begin preparing immediately for the evacuation and resettlement of approximately 200,000 Vietnamese citizens whose lives would be at risk following the imminent communist takeover (Chan 1991; Hing 1993; Loescher and Scanlan 1986; Rutledge 1992). As most of the world felt that the situation was an apt conclusion to the U.S.’s disastrous involvement in Viet Nam, other countries made clear that they were not willing to permanently accept large numbers of refugees. Therefore, the U.S. began making preparations to permanently relocate the vast majority of refugees to the U.S. The IATF worked with the Pentagon to dispatch ships to the coast of Viet Nam to receive refugees and coordinated the hasty setting up of relocation processing centers in Guam, the Philippines, Thailand, Wake Island, and Hawai’i, as part of “Operation New Life.” Although senior Vietnamese government officials were easy to identify, the chaotic situation in the days immediately prior to the fall of Saigon mitigated any standardized method for identifying those whose lives would be in danger once the communists took over (Loescher and Scanlan 1986). This meant that almost 200,000 who could have been considered “high risk” were left behind while others whose claim of persecution was less legitimate managed to escape.

36


Table 2.1 Total Immigrants and Refugees & Asylees Arriving in the U.S. from Viet Nam, by Fiscal Year

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Total Immigrants

Refugees & Asylees

128,038 7,401 5,094 88,543 72,546 43,483 55,631 72,553 37,560 37,236 31,895 29,993 24,231 25,789 37,739 48,792 55,307 77,735 59,614 41,345 41,752 42,067 38,519 17,649 19,164 25,340

125,000 3,200 1,900 11,100 20,666 22,247 19,589 13,666 21,463 23,372 22,831 20,821 20,617 21,407 21,883 27,378 27,975 26,690 31,219 34,248 32,244 29,700 22,297 4,921 2,184 3,365

Source: Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Tables 3, 26, and 27, years 2001, 1991, and 1981. a Total Immigrants includes those classified as “refugees and asylees.”


37

Nonetheless, in the first several months after the fall of Saigon, approximately 130,000 refugees from Southeast Asia were resettled, of whom 125,000 were Vietnamese, with the rest being Cambodians, Laotians, and Hmong. In this first wave of evacuees, the mode of exit varied, depending on connections, resources, and determination, but most left on cargo ships dispatched by the U.S. military and were initially taken to the major processing station in Guam. After the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) issued their official documents, virtually all evacuees who were resettled in the U.S. were flown to one of four resettlement centers: Camp Pendleton (CA), Fort Chaffee (AK), Fort Indiantown Gap (PA), or Eglin Air Force Base (FL). The refugees were then matched with one of nine voluntary agencies whose job was to coordinate their eventual resettlement with local sponsors in communities throughout the U.S. Once a refugee family was officially matched with a sponsoring family or church who promised to provide it with food, clothing, and shelter until the refugees became self-sufficient, it was then flown to the eventual resettlement destination to start incorporation into American society. Sponsors were also charged with helping the Vietnamese find employment, registering their children in schools, and other adjustment details. By December 1975, some eight months after the first evacuees left Viet Nam, the relocation centers were disbanded (Chan 1991). Scholars have noted that the first wave of refugees from Viet Nam tended to come from the upper and middle classes. Its members tended to be more educated, wealthier, were more likely to have political connections to the U.S. government, and often included military officers and professionals who worked for U.S. companies in Viet Nam (Caplan, Whitmore and Choy 1989; Gold and Kibria 1993; Kibria 1993; Rutledge 1992; Zhou and Bankston 1998). They also tended to be more fluent in English and have advanced occupational skills, both of which eased their relocation and eventual adjustment to the U.S., although many initially had little choice but to take jobs that were well below their professional qualifications. Because there was a disproportionate number of Roman Catholics present in the first wave of refugees, their initial adjustment was also somewhat eased because they were more easily matched with Catholic and Christian sponsors.

38


Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of the New Arrivals In order to measure the socioeconomic mobility of different waves of Vietnamese immigrants, we first must establish baseline measures as close to their initial entry as possible. With that in mind, Table 2.2 presents data on the ancestry, race, and language characteristics of Vietnamese immigrants by Census year and cohort of arrival. In terms of ancestry, the results show that among the 1975-1979 cohort in the 1980 Census, almost 78% of them identified as having primarily Vietnamese ancestry while 12.3 identified as having primarily Chinese ancestry (with 7% of all Vietnamese in this cohort speaking Mandarin Chinese as their primary language). In 1990, the percentage for Vietnamese ancestry increased to over 90% while that for Chinese ancestry decreased to 4.7%. Because the data represent the same cohort (those who arrived between 1975 and 1979), it is likely that many refugees decided to switch their ancestral identity from Chinese or other Asian group to Vietnamese. We may speculate that perhaps the development of burgeoning Vietnamese communities around the country and particularly in Orange County, California influenced this development as refugees from Viet Nam coalesced around commonalities in their recent histories and current circumstances. Nonetheless, subsequent cohorts included decreasing proportions who claimed Vietnamese primary ancestry. Along with Chinese, other ancestries that were represented included Montagnard, Khmer, Cham, and Cambodian. Similarly, the 1991-1994 and 1995-2000 cohorts included notable portions who identified themselves as belonging to the Chinese “race” and speaking Vietnamese as their primary language, a pattern that did not exist in earlier Censuses. Undoubtedly much of this is due to the fact that a greater proportion of each subsequent wave were ethnic Chinese who were persecuted in Viet Nam after the communist takeover. Paradoxically, part of it may also have been the case that after the initial development of the Vietnamese community, which may have been partly driven by the need to share a common identity, subsequent Vietnamese arrivals felt less of a sense to identify as solely Vietnamese since the Vietnamese community and ethnic enclave became more commercial, rather than cultural, in nature


39

although political opposition to the communists back in Viet Nam still remained a strong uniting factor). Table 2.2 Ancestry, Race, and Language Characteristics of Foreign-Born Vietnamese Americans by Cohort of Arrival and Census Year 1980 197519751979 1979

1990 198019851984 1990

2000 199119951994 2000

Ancestry Vietnamese

77.8

90.1

88.3

86.1

80.6

78.8

Chinese

12.3

4.7

6.0

3.9

5.6

6.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.1

0.0

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.3

0.3

0.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

89.4

87.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

4.9

5.7

84.2

90.5

91.3

89.6

89.1

85.2

7.0

3.4

5.9

3.9

4.4

4.4

2.4

5.8

2.5

1.4

3.4

2.8

Montagnard, Khmer, or Cham Cambodian Race Vietnamese Chinese Language Vietnamese Mandarin or Cantonese English French

1.2

0.3

0.2

0.6

0.2

0.2

Mon-Khmer or Cambodian

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.2

0.7

0.2

a

1980 and 1990 data from IPUMS; 2000 data from PUMS

Table 2.3 presents data comparing various demographic and socioeconomic characteristics for successive waves of immigrants who

40


were born in Viet Nam. However, we should note that in public use records from the decennial census for 1980 and 1990, unfortunately group immigrants’ years of arrival into two- and five-year cohorts. As a result, we are not able to identify specific cohorts based on unique immigration streams in the same way that we can in Table 2.4 using 2000 PUMS data (where specific year of arrival is identified). Therefore, although the comparisons between cohorts within Table 2.3 are certainly valid as they relate to tracking the socioeconomic progress members of the same cohort across each Census year, it is not feasible to compare cohorts across Tables 2.3 and 2.4, since they are not grouped into identical years of arrival. The results from Table 2.3 show that in the 1980 census, the cohort of Vietnamese immigrants who arrived between 1975 and 1979 was very young, with a mean age of only 24.5 (not shown in the Table) and about a third of them were 1.5 generation who came to the U.S. before age 12. Nonetheless, a few years after their arrival in the U.S., the relatively dire socioeconomic situation of these refugees is evident in the data. For example, although the median personal income of those refugees who were at least 25 years of age was almost $15,000, the median family income was only slightly over $27,000 (both adjusted to 2000 dollars). This suggests that in many circumstances, there was only one primary householder who worked steadily and/or full-time (or that the household depended on welfare or sponsorship aid). Interestingly, only 30.4% of those in this cohort were married with spouse present (the lowest among all cohorts in Table 2.3) but there were an average of 5.4 persons per family. This indicates that many families were still divided and in the process of being reunited and that in the meantime, many households may have consisted of extended families with many relatives living together. As a result of the economic difficulties of adjusting to the U.S., undoubtedly exacerbated by the economic recession of that period, over 35% of those in this cohort lived in poverty, despite receiving the largest amounts of government aid and relocation assistance of any cohort since 1975. However, the unemployment rate was only 4%, which may suggest that these first arrivals found work plentiful, even if the jobs did not pay enough to lift them out of poverty. It may also indicate that many were


41

Table 2.3 Characteristics of Foreign-Born Vietnamese Americans by Cohort of Arrival and Census Year 1980 Median personal income b Median family income b Living in poverty Mean family size Married, spouse present Not proficient in English College degree or higher c Less than high school c Homeowner c Self-employed Unemployment rate High skill occupation College degree or higher c

1990 Median personal income b Median family income b Living in poverty Mean family size Married, spouse present Not proficient in English College degree or higher c Less than high school c 1990 Homeowner c Self-employed Unemployment rate High skill occupation

1975-1979

1975-1979 d

1980-1984

$14,639 $27,126 35.4 5.4 30.4 42.1 11.3 39.7 32.2 2.6 4.0 9.2 11.3

$23,715 $55,898 14.6 4.4 56.4 26.1 21.0 30.2 67.8 8.7 6.2 26.7 21.0

$8,564 $41,316 24.6 4.9 49.8 25.4 9.9 43.0 75.2 5.1 7.8 18.4 9.9

1985-1990

1975-1979 e

1980-1984 d

$4,506 $30,303 36.8 4.5 36.7 59.2 12.0 43.5

$24,300 $63,500 9.1 3.6 71.7 23.7 26.1 31.6

$24,000 $60,000 12.5 4.0 71.7 32.3 24.5 33.6

61.2 4.2 17.2 9.1

79.2 13.7 2.2 21.2

68.3 13.3 2.7 22.5

42


Table 2.3 Characteristics of Foreign-Born Vietnamese Americans by Cohort of Arrival and Census Year (continued)

2000 Median personal income b Median family income b Living in poverty Mean family size Married, spouse present Not proficient in English College degree or higher c Less than high school c Homeowner c Self-employed Unemployment rate High skill occupation a b c

1985-1990 1985-1990 d

1975-1979 e 1991-1994

1980-1984 d 1995-2000

$14,000 $44,875 16.7 4.1 64.2 47.5 15.2 45.0 54.9 8.7 2.2 12.9

$11,000 $44,700 17.7 4.3 51.0 46.6 12.0 44.4 52.7 5.9 2.9 10.5

$8,100 $42,000 18.5 4.2 49.6 63.2 8.4 52.9 41.8 4.1 3.9 5.4

Population: 18 years of age, unless otherwise noted 1980 and 1990 data in adjusted 2000 dollars At least 25 years of age; d At least 28 years of age; e At least 38 years of age

not in the labor market at all. It is therefore understandable that a relatively few were homeowners or worked in professional or technical occupations a few years after their arrival. However, ten years later as measured using 1990 census data, the 1975-1979 cohort, now ten years older, showed remarkable socioeconomic gains. Its median personal income increased 62% to almost $24,000 while the median family income more than doubled to almost $56,000 (both in adjusted 2000 dollars). Further, its poverty rate and level of English non-proficiency both declined significantly while its rates of college degree attainment and homeownership roughly doubled, with its rates of self-employment and working in a high skill occupation almost tripling. The shifts in demographic


43

composition were clear by 1990 as well. Specifically, its mean family size declined while the rate of being married with spouse present increased significantly. Data from the 1990 census in Table 2.3 also measured the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of two other cohorts, those who arrived between 1980 and 1984 and between 1985 and 1990. In comparing these cohorts to each other and to the 1975-1979 cohort, those who arrived in the 1980s were relatively similar demographically, although as Table 2.2 showed, the 1980-1984 cohort had a higher proportion who claimed Chinese ancestry and language while the 19851990 cohort had notable numbers of those who claimed Montagnard, Cham, or Cambodian ancestry. However, in socioeconomic terms, the 1985-1990 cohort consistently trailed their 1980-1984 counterparts. Specifically, compared to the 1980-1984 cohort, the 1985-1989 group had much lower median personal and family incomes along with rates of professional or technical occupation, lower rates of being married with spouse present and of homeownership, and significantly higher rates of living in poverty and English non-proficiency. However, these disadvantages may have been due mainly to recent arrival rather than deficiencies in human capital, as illustrated by the 1985-1990 cohort actually having a higher college degree attainment rate and similar less than high school attainment rates compared to the 1980-1984 cohort. However, as we follow the 1975-1979, 1980-1984, and 1985-1990 cohorts into the 2000 Census, their socioeconomic mobility is evident. Specifically, the 1975-1979 group, now at least 38 years of age, increased its median family income 14% to $63,500 (although its median personal income barely increased at all) while its rates of poverty and lack of English proficiency continued to decline. Conversely, its rates of college degree attainment, homeownership, and self-employment all increased. The only surprising findings are that the rate of less than high school completion actually increased somewhat from 1990 to 2000 and the rate of high skill occupation declined 26%. The latter may have been due to economic conditions at and immediately prior to the 2000 Census or, alternatively, many who were in high skill occupations may have decided to become entrepreneurs instead, perhaps contributing to the 57% rate increase in self-employment from 1990 to 2000. Regarding the rate of less than

44


high school completion, there is not an obvious answer other than to speculate that respondents may have been more forthright in their answers in 2000 than they may have been in 1990. The 1980-1984 cohort also displayed notable improvements, exemplified by significant increases in its median personal and family incomes and rates of being married with spouse present, college degree attainment (a 147% increase), self-employment (up 161%), and high skill occupation. Similarly, rates of poverty, family size, less than high school completion, and unemployment fell significantly. However, the results show that after 10 years the rates of homeownership and fluency in English fell slightly. Again, regarding English fluency, we can only speculate that perhaps members of this cohort were being more forthright in answering this Census question in 2000 than in 1990, or that in the context of the burgeoning Vietnamese American community, the standard for English fluency was elevated from 1990 to 2000. Lack of improvement in homeownership may have been due to booming real estate prices in the second half of the 1990s, especially in Orange County, California, where almost half of all Vietnamese Americans live. The 1985-1990 cohort also showed remarkable socioeconomic progress, although its initial characteristics were quite low to begin with. Like the earlier cohorts, it improved in every measure (with two exceptions) with their biggest improvements coming in personal income, poverty rate, and unemployment. The two exceptions were less than high school completion and homeownership, again similar to earlier cohorts. Finally, Table 2.3 describes the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the cohorts who arrived in 1991-1994 and 1995-2000. Of note, these cohorts had a relatively high proportion of those who claimed Chinese ancestry, race, or primary language, similar to the 1980-1984 cohort. They also tended to be older with lower proportions of the 1.5 generation. They may have also included many parents of earlier refugees and immigrants who were being reunited with their adult children who were now in a position to sponsor them. Socioeconomically, the 1991-1994 cohort enjoyed relatively high median family incomes, college attainment, self-employment rates and relatively low rates of living in poverty and unemployment while the


45

1995-2000 cohort fared somewhat worse in these respects. Nonetheless, the human capital levels of the 1991-1994 cohort were at the low end in several respects, represented by high rates of English non-proficiency and less than high school attainment. Overall, we might conjecture that the 1991-1994 and 1995-2000 cohorts may have been able to overcome their human capital handicaps by participating in and relying on various mechanisms within Vietnamese enclaves and communities that had economically and culturally matured by the year 2000 (at least the primary one in Orange County). We now turn to Table 2.4, which uses 2000 data to present many of the same demographic and socioeconomic characteristics in Table 2.2 across five distinct cohorts of Vietnamese immigrants to the U.S., and by the foreign-raised and the 1.5 generation separately. 2000 data allows us to differentiate each year of arrival individually so we are now able to construct unique cohorts that more closely align with immigration and refugee streams. While the grouping of these cohorts is somewhat arbitrary, evidence from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (2001), as shown in Table 2.1, indicates that they approximately correspond to either the start and end of a distinct influx of immigrants from Viet Nam (1975-1976, 1977-1982, 19891993) or represent typically stable periods between waves (1983-1988 and 1995-2000). The cohort at the center of our focus is the initial wave of 1975-1976. While the vast majority in this wave arrived in the U.S. in the several months following the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975, arrivals from 1976 are included in this cohort because although many refugees fled Viet Nam before the end of 1975, their arrival in the U.S. may have been delayed at one or more of the processing centers established in Thailand, the Philippines, Wake Island, or Guam, and they therefore may not have formally entered the U.S. until 1976 (Loescher and Scanlan 1986; Zhou and Bankston 1998). The results from Table 2.4 allow us to look more closely at each unique wave of Vietnamese arrivals and indeed show that, in general, the initial 1975-1976 wave appears to have the highest socioeconomic attainment levels and that socioeconomic attainment decreases with each subsequent wave, for both foreign-raised and 1.5 generation Vietnamese. The advantages of the first wave include the highest levels of median personal and family income, being a U.S. citizen,

46


Table 2.4 Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Foreign-Born Vietnamese by Cohort of Arrival

Foreign-Raised N Mean age a Chinese ancestry a U.S. citizen Personal income c Family income c Living in poverty Mean family size Married, sp. present Not profic. in English College degree b Less than H.S. b Homeowner b Self-employed Unemployment rate High skill occupation 1.5 Generation N % of total cohort Mean age a Chinese ancestry a U.S. citizen Personal income c Family income c Living in poverty

19751976

19771982

19831989

19901994

19952000

570 43.4 1.2 93.0 $27.8 $65.0 6.5 3.0 71.6

1,099 45.9 7.5 85.7 $22.2 $59.5 13.9 4.0 74.7

743 44.5 2.4 78.9 $18.6 $50.0 13.1 4.0 70.3

2,573 41.4 1.2 51.5 $12.8 $46.5 16.3 4.3 53.8

853 38.1 1.5 9.5 $8.0 $43.0 18.2 4.2 49.7

19.8 31.2 25.4 80.7 12.8 2.5 24.7

31.7 21.0 38.1 73.0 13.6 2.7 19.7

41.5 20.7 39.8 61.9 13.1 1.6 18.0

49.2 12.0 43.5 52.9 6.3 3.0 10.8

63.9 8.4 51.2 41.8 4.3 3.8 4.8

246 30.1 31.0 0.8 94.3 $33.9 $73.6 4.1

421 27.7 26.0 5.5 79.1 $16.9 $72.0 17.1

243 24.6 23.0 2.6 77.0 $9.9 $55.0 18.9

197 7.1 15.6 0.9 48.7 $1.5 $38.6 29.9

0 0.0 9.3 0.7 -----


47

Table 2.4 Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Foreign-Born Vietnamese by Cohort of Arrival (continued) 19751976

19771982

19831989

19901994

19952000

1.5 Generation Mean family size Married, sp. present

3.3 49.6

3.9 30.9

4.1 21.8

4.8 5.1

---

Not profic. in English College degree b Less than H.S. b Homeowner b Self-employed Unemployment rate High skill occupation

2.4 61.4 4.9 68.3 7.3 2.0 41.5

6.2 46.2 12.6 63.0 5.5 3.8 27.1

6.2 35.4 13.3 48.7 2.1 4.1 21.4

8.1 33.3 0.0 33.3 2.0 4.1 6.6

--------

Universe: all Foreign-born Vietnamese at least 18 years of age a All ages b At least 25 years of age c Median incomes in tens of thousands (adjusted to 2000 values)

having a college degree or higher, being self-employed, and having a professional or technical occupation. The first wave also has the lowest levels in terms of mean family size, lack of English proficiency, and having less than a high school education. The only areas in which the first wave does not outperform its subsequent counterparts are in percentage who are married with spouse present and unemployment rate (both for foreign-raised Vietnamese), although these may be indicative of the higher likelihood that many in the first wave were separated from spouses in the aftermath of the evacuation from Viet Nam, or the relatively high mean age of the first wave cohort, implying that some are now living in nursing homes. Also as shown in Table 2.4, the first wave also contained the second-highest proportions of the 1.5 generation, children who were born in Viet Nam but arrived in the U.S. before the age 12 and therefore whose socialization is quite similar to second generation children (Rumbaut 1991; Rumbaut 1994; Thomas and Znaniecki 1958).

48


Table 2.5 Intermarriage Rates of Vietnamese Wives by Husband’s Race/Ethnicity, 1975-2000 Vietnamese Wives with the following spouse Cohort of Arrival

Vietnamese

White, Viet Nam Vet

White, Not a VN Vet

1975-1979 a

72.0 (306)

b

94.5 (155)

0.0

1.3 (2)

1982-1986 b

91.6 (206)

1.8 (4)

3.7 (8)

1987-1990 b

94.2 (113)

0.0

1.7 (2)

1991-1994 c

95.0 (740)

0.0

2.6 (20)

c

95.1 (154)

0.0

1.9 (3)

1980-1981

1995-2000

15.8 (67)

8.0 (34)

Sample sizes are in parentheses From 1980 IPUMS b From 1990 IPUMS c From 2000 PUMS a

A relatively high proportion of the 1.5 generation in the first and second wave of Vietnamese refugees suggests that these children had a relatively easy assimilation process, or at the least, had advantages in becoming acculturated more easily compared to older refugee children. In addition, although census data cannot confirm this, anecdotal evidence suggests that 1.5 generation children were often called upon to help their parents adjust to American society by translating for them and introducing them to American norms, behaviors, and institutions (Freeman 1995; Kibria 1993; Rumbaut 1996; Zhou and Bankston 1998). Therefore, we might surmise that because the first and second waves of Vietnamese refugees had the highest proportions of the 1.5 generation, the entire cohort may have had some advantages in acculturating to American society.


49

Comparing the foreign-raised to the 1.5 generation within each cohort, the results indicate that at least among the 1975-1976 cohort, the 1.5 generation outperforms its foreign-raised counterparts in almost all aspects of socioeconomic attainment, at times quite substantially. However, these gaps between the foreign-raised and the 1.5 generation decline in later cohorts, as each successive 1.5 generation becomes younger. For example, within the 1977-1982 cohort, the 1.5 generation has a lower median personal income but a higher median family income. The 1.5 generation also outperforms its foreign-raised counterparts in the 1977-1982 cohort when it comes to English proficiency, college degree attainment, high school completion, and professional or technical occupation but is outperformed by the foreignraised when it comes to poverty rate, being married with spouse present, homeownership, and unemployment rate. In later cohorts, the foreign-raised almost always outperform their 1.5 generation counterparts, mainly because the 1.5 generation tends to be quite young. Therefore it appears that among immigrant Vietnamese, the only instance in which the 1.5 generation significantly outperforms the foreign-raised is in the initial 1975-1976 cohort. Data from Table 2.5 illustrate that the first wave also had the highest proportions of Vietnamese women being married to White husbands, with 15.8% married to a veteran of the Viet Nam War and 8.0% married to a White who was not a Viet Nam veteran. (The percentages in the 1975-1979 cohort only add up to 95.8 because they do not include those Vietnamese wives who were married to husbands who were Black, Latino, or of another Asian ethnicity.) Because there is little if any research on the assimilation of Vietnamese women who are married to White Viet Nam War vets, we can only speculate as to whether these Vietnamese wives had any advantages or disadvantages when it came to adjusting to American society. On the one hand, they certainly would have been immersed in American norms, behaviors, and institutions sooner and more frequently than others. On the other hand, evidence suggests that marriages involving Asian women and American military personnel are more prone to cultural conflicts, separation, and divorce (Sturdevant and Stoltzfus 1993; Yu 2002). In addition, such marriages may isolate the Vietnamese wives from contact with the Vietnamese community and thereby remove them from a vital source of social-psychological adjustment and support.

50


The Second and Subsequent Waves of Refugees and Immigrants The characteristics of the second wave are intertwined with the push factors that led them to flee Viet Nam beginning in 1977. After the fall of Saigon, the new communist regime began implementing several new economic, political, and agricultural policies based on communist ideology. These included the sometimes brutal “reeducation” of and subsequent systematic discrimination against some 200,000 former South Vietnamese military personnel and their families, the collectivization of farmland, and the forced relocation of citizens from urban to previously uncultivated or heavily damaged rural areas that were designated as “New Economic Zones” (Loescher and Scanlan 1986; Zhou and Bankston 1998). Vietnamese of Chinese ancestry were also singled out for persecution because of a combination of historical resentment at their business success and disproportionate commercial dominance and fears that the Chinese government, Viet Nam’s historical nemesis, was secretly using them to destabilize the new Vietnamese communist regime (Zhou and Bankston 1998). As a result, Chinese businesses were closed, community leaders were imprisoned, Chinese were removed from civil service posts and prohibited from other occupations, forced to register with the government, and had their food rations reduced (Chan 1991). Not surprisingly, these radical social and economic policies significantly disrupted the lives of many Vietnamese who increasingly became marginalized in the new communist regime. At the same time, the Vietnamese government reallocated many of the country’s already depleted resources into bolstering the military, culminating in Viet Nam’s invasion of Cambodia to overthrow the Khmer Rouge in December 1978 and its efforts to repel Chinese forces who invaded Viet Nam’s northern border out of retaliation a few months later. Combined with continuing political instability and increasing corruption, natural disasters that reduced crop yields, and little if any infrastructural development, these developments made an increasing number of Vietnamese desperate to escape (Caplan, Whitmore and Choy 1989; Chan 1991; Tran 1991; Zhou and Bankston 1998).


51

These push factors led to the second wave of Vietnamese refugees in 1977, which popularly became known as “the boat people” as many Vietnamese escaped aboard overcrowded, under-equipped, and dangerously constructed boats. Along with ethnic Chinese and those associated with the former South Vietnamese government, this second wave also included a significant number of members from the Hmong tribes, many of whom were trained by the CIA as a “secret army” to fight Laotian communists and their Vietnamese allies. In addition, there were sizeable numbers of Lao, Cham, Montagnard (who also fought alongside American troops), and Khmer ethnic minorities (who were escaping genocide at the hands of the Khmer Rouge and whose plight was overshadowed by the momentous events surrounding the fall of South Viet Nam). Those who were part of the second wave of Vietnamese refugees did not have the luxury of relying on American cargo ships and other U.S.-sanctioned escape routes. Instead, many had to rely on elaborate and clandestine plans to sail, fly, or walk out of the country. Even after depleting their life savings and selling their material possessions to bribe government officials to look the other way and to pay for supposedly “safe passage,” many became easy prey for scams and robberies along the way. Nonetheless, several hundreds of thousands managed to flee in some way or another. These vessels sailed to the nearby shores of Thailand, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore. Unfortunately, these boats became easy targets for pirates, were prone to capsizing, and starvation was common. It was not uncommon for entire boatloads of Vietnamese escapees to perish at sea. Many estimate that at least ten percent and possibly even half of all escapees lost their lives trying to flee Viet Nam and that fully one-third of all boats containing Vietnamese refugees were victims of robbery, rape, or murder (Freeman 1995; Rumbaut 1995). Eventually, approximately 400,000 Vietnamese escaped in the 1977-1982 second wave of Vietnamese refugees. Their entry into the U.S. was facilitated by the Refugee Act of 1980 which modified the original Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965 to categorize refugees and refugee resettlement as a separate policy with its own framework and numerical limits, rather than including it as part of the overall immigration preference structure (Zhou and Bankston 1998). Similarly, in consultation with the United Nations,

52


the Vietnamese government organized the Orderly Departure Program (ODP) in 1979 that facilitated the exit of those who were associated with the former South Vietnamese government and military, who had been subjected to years of imprisonment and systematic discrimination. The second wave of refugees and immigrants from Viet Nam are those who arrived between 1977 and 1982. This cohort actually consists of two waves -- 1977-1978 arrivals and 1979-1982 arrivals but evidence suggests that members of these two waves are quite similar in terms of their social and economic backgrounds in Viet Nam and include large numbers of ethnic Chinese, farmers and non-urban residents, and ethnic minorities from central and northern Viet Nam (Do 1999; Freeman 1995; Hein 1995; Rumbaut 1995; Rutledge 1992), as shown in Table 2.4 where 7.5% of the foreign-raised and 5.5% of the 1.5 generation within the second cohort sample identified themselves as having “Chinese-Vietnamese” ancestry, the highest proportion among all five cohorts in question. In addition, there is evidence that other ethnic and linguistic minorities are present in this second wave of Vietnamese refugees and immigrants. The results from Table 2.4 also show that both the foreign-raised and 1.5 generation in the second wave tend to be directly behind their counterparts in the first wave in most measures of socioeconomic attainment and adjustment, including rates of naturalization, median personal income, receiving public assistance, lack of English proficiency, having a college degree or higher, being self-employed, and having a professional or technical occupation. By the mid 1990s, over 200,000 Vietnamese had entered the U.S. through the ODP (Zhou and Bankston 1998). The 1988 Amerasian Homecoming Act and the 1989 Humanitarian Operation Program further led to the exit and resettlement of those children fathered by American military personnel and the last remnants of former South Vietnamese prisoners, respectively. By the 1990s, through secondary migration from their initial resettlement locations, many Vietnamese refugees had joined friends and family members in metropolitan areas that were beginning to develop ethnic communities. These included the largest concentration of Vietnamese Americans in Orange County (CA) and smaller communities located in San Jose, Houston, and Arlington. By this time, many Vietnamese Americans were also able to sponsor


53

relatives and family members from Viet Nam, as other American families and organizations had sponsored them when they first arrived in the U.S. As data from Table 2.4 reveal, the third wave of immigrants who arrived between 1983 and 1989 generally have socioeconomic attainment levels that are slightly lower than the second wave, although the foreign-raised in this cohort had the lowest unemployment rate. Finally, the fourth wave of 1990-1994 and latest wave of 1995-2000 continue the pattern of slightly declining socioeconomic attainment levels for each succeeding wave. THE DYNAMICS OF RESETTLEMENT IN THE U.S. Social scientists and social service professionals note that, in many important ways, refugees can be quite different from conventional immigrants. Specifically, refugees are almost always forced to flee their native country in order to survive whereas immigrants are able to plan and prepare for their journey in advance, occupationally, financially, and psychologically. This is significant because, as a result, refugees do not have the advantage of being self-selected in terms of human capital (Gold and Kibria 1993), thereby putting them at a disadvantage when they try to incorporate into the receiving economy. Vietnamese refugees also lacked the advantage, at least initially, of having ethnic communities already established in the U.S. In fact, scholars note that this is one of the key differences that separates the experiences of the Vietnamese from other refugee groups, such as Cubans and Soviet Jews. That is, after the first wave of Soviet Jews and Cubans arrived in the U.S. to lay the foundations for their ethnic communities, sizeable numbers of later arrivals had the advantage of being able to utilize emerging social networks once they arrived in the U.S. This eased their adaptation in terms of locating meaningful employment opportunities and just as important, this psychological buffer zone eased their transition into mainstream American society (Gold and Kibria 1993). In contrast, a large proportion of the entire Vietnamese immigrant/refugee stream arrived in the first few years, which meant that smaller numbers of later arrivals had the advantage of relying on Vietnamese American community support mechanisms. In other words, the Vietnamese stream was much more front-loaded while

54


Soviet Jews and Cubans were more evenly distributed and even slightly back-loaded. Moreover, unlike and in comparison to the resettlement of Cubans and Soviet Jews, Vietnamese refugees also had the disadvantage of being initially dispersed throughout the country as a result of official resettlement policies that sought to avoid overburdening certain cities with significant numbers of refugees at once. Although many Vietnamese later migrated to other areas and indeed developed their own ethnic communities in certain metropolitan areas, their initial resettlement into ethnically isolated areas contributed to numerous adjustment problems. Data from Table 2.6 show that in 1980, 46.1% of the entire Vietnamese population in the U.S. (counted at 261,729) lived in the top eight metropolitan areas, with the southern California consolidated metropolitan area of Los Angeles-Long Beach and Orange County leading the way with 19.1% of all Vietnamese Americans, or just under 50,000. Other metropolitan areas that had at least 4% of the Vietnamese American population included Houston, New Orleans, San Jose, and San Francisco. A decade later in 1990, several developments were evident. First, the total size of the Vietnamese population in the U.S. skyrocketed 135% to 614,547. Second, the Los Angeles-Orange County metropolitan areas increased their concentration of that total population to 22.5%, or roughly 138,000 Vietnamese Americans. By this time, the Vietnamese community and the burgeoning “Little Saigon” area surrounding Westminster, Orange County were well on their way to becoming the dominant Vietnamese ethnic enclave in the U.S. as they claimed 12% (or about 74,000) of all Vietnamese Americans. Further, the concentration of the Vietnamese population became clear, as almost 50% lived in just the top eight metropolitan areas. Finally, the metropolitan areas of San Jose and Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV became prominent locations of Vietnamese settlement and internal migration, as both areas increased both their total numbers and proportions of the Vietnamese American population. Finally, in 2000, the total Vietnamese American population increased another 93.7% to almost 1.2 million. However, the trend


55

Table 2.6 Metropolitan Statistical Areas with Largest Proportions of the Total Vietnamese Population, 1980-2000 1980 Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA Orange County, CA Houston, TX New Orleans, LA San Jose, CA San Francisco, CA Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV San Diego, CA Total Proportion for Top 8 MSAs

261,729 12.5 6.6 6.2 5.0 4.6 4.2 3.8 3.2 46.1

1990 Orange County, CA Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA San Jose, CA Houston, TX Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV San Diego, CA Oakland, CA Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA Total Proportion for Top 8 MSAs

614,547 12.0 10.5 9.1 5.5 3.9 3.5 2.8 2.1 49.4

2000 Orange County, CA San Jose, CA Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA Houston, TX Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV San Diego, CA Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA Oakland, CA Total Proportion for Top 8 MSAs

1,190,357 11.9 8.8 7.5 5.4 3.9 3.1 3.0 2.7 46.3

Sources: 1980 IPUMS, 1990 SF1 Table P007, 2000 SF1 Table PST7

56


toward geographic concentration seemed to abate as the top eight MSAs only claimed 46.3% of all Vietnamese Americans, down from 49.4% in 1990. Further, six of the eight metropolitan areas saw their proportional share of the Vietnamese population decline. The exceptions were Washington DC, which stayed at 3.9%, and the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett MSA, which saw its share jump from 2.1% in 1990 to 3.0% in 2000, representing a remarkable 177% increase from 12,905 in 1990 to 35,710 to 2000. It is clear that the unabated arrivals of immigrants and refugees from Viet Nam accounted for the bulk of these population increases of the last two decades and that the migration of Vietnamese Americans from their original points of resettlement toward developing ethnic communities in California, Houston, Washington DC, and Seattle led to the transformation of both the demographic characteristics of the Vietnamese American community but also the ethnic and commercial landscapes of their destinations as well. Therefore, although the initial wave of Vietnamese Americans may not have had the advantages associated with arriving into existing ethnic communities, the speed at which these communities eventually formed and expanded is remarkable. Later we will examine the development of Vietnamese American small businesses in more detail. Many scholars also note that because of the political and human trauma associated with their refugee experiences and their inability to permanently return to their homeland in the foreseeable future, the Vietnamese have relatively high naturalization rates compared to other Asian Americans (Heer 1996; Portes and Rumbaut 1996). Data from Table 2.7 shows that among the five Asian American ethnic groups included in this research, Vietnamese immigrants had the second highest naturalization rates overall, after Filipinos. Nonetheless, the process of naturalization is more complex than is revealed by mere percentages. Scholars and community activists have increasingly described naturalization as a mechanism to empower immigrant communities. Only after acquiring U.S. citizenship can an immigrant be allowed to participate fully in the democratic process and vote in elections. In the process, immigrant communities have the opportunity to parlay their already large and steadily growing population size into


57

political clout by voting as a bloc. Recent evidence suggests that large racial/ethnic and immigrant communities within certain political boundaries are starting to reap the benefits of this strategy (Chang 2001; Lien 2001; Saito 1998). Most recently, naturalization has been used as a strategy for economic survival in the face of legislation that increasingly denies numerous social services and public benefits to non-citizens (Espenshade and Huber 1999). Scholars point to the passage of Proposition 187 by California voters in a 1994 statewide referendum and the federal 1996 Welfare Reform Act as recent examples. The provisions of both pieces of legislation dictated that virtually all nonemergency social services and public assistance benefits would be Table 2.7 Naturalization Rates of Foreign-Born Asian Americans by Gender and Ethnic Group % Naturalized Citizen Men

Women

Total

Asian Indian

42.2% (5,320)

41.8% (4,575)

42.0% (9,895)

Chinese

55.6% (6,353)

56.3% (7,148)

56.0% (13,501)

Filipino

65.5% (4,652)

64.6% (6,578)

65.0% (11,230)

Korean

48.6% (2,673)

54.5% (3,863)

52.1% (6,536)

Vietnamese

65.3% (3,458)

59.3% (3,527)

62.3% (6,985)

Universe: at least 18 years of age a Sample sizes are in parentheses

severely restricted or denied altogether to non-citizen immigrants, illegal aliens, and even their U.S.-born children. Although many of the provisions of both pieces of legislation have since been challenged and ruled unconstitutional in court, one of the unintended consequences of their passage was a dramatic surge in applications for naturalizations among non-citizen immigrants in California and in other states with large immigrant populations, such as New York, Florida, and Texas, which overwhelmed the capabilities of the Immigration and

58


Naturalization Service (INS) to process them in a timely manner (Espenshade and Huber 1999; Rumbaut 1999; Sánchez 1999). Recent research shows that following the 1965 Immigration Act and the subsequent large influx of immigrants, the rates of naturalization for all immigrants who were at least 18 years of age or older fell from 67% to 43% from 1970 to 1990 (Ong and Nakanishi 1999). Nonetheless, this monumental demographic shift did not affect the naturalization rate for Asian immigrants in the same way. In fact, their rates of becoming naturalized citizens increased slightly from 41% in 1970 to 43% in 1990. This is despite the history and legacy of institutional discrimination aimed at the Asian American community and that it was not until 1952 that Asian Americans were allowed to become naturalized citizens (Chan 1991; Hing 1993). Research shows that where the possibility for return exists, immigrant groups are less likely to become naturalized; this is exemplified by relatively low naturalization rates for immigrants from Mexico, Canada, and many European countries (Heer 1996; Ong and Nakanishi 1999). Studies also consistently find that length of stay in the U.S. is the strongest predictor of naturalization among immigrants (Heer 1996; Ong and Nakanishi 1999). At the same time, the traditional motivations for becoming a U.S. citizen remain -- civic representation, informed democratic participation, ability of bring in relatives, eligibility for some jobs, freedom from deportation, and exemplifying one’s loyalty and allegiance to one’s adopted homeland. For the vast majority of Vietnamese Americans, these motivations tend to characterize their naturalization decision. As refugees fleeing a communist regime, many Vietnamese did not want to be associated with the new government that drove them from their homeland and therefore, the choice of becoming a U.S. citizen is based on a rejection of their communist enemies and embracing their new host country, the U.S. (Do, 1999; Rutledge 1992). In addition, Vietnamese refugees also shared with Cubans and Soviet Jews the advantage of being the recipients of a favorable American foreign policy (Chan 1991; Hing 1993; Zhou and Bankston 1998). Specifically, data show that the U.S. overwhelmingly favors refugees from communist countries rather than those who may also be


59

fleeing from political persecution but come from countries whose governments the U.S. supports or has even directly installed in power. In the case of the Vietnamese, one benefit that comes from admitting hundreds of thousands of refugees is that the U.S. can implicitly claim a moral victory in that so many Vietnamese were willing to risk their lives to come live in the U.S., rather than stay under communist rule. This sentiment is especially salient since the Viet Nam War was the first and so far only war in which the U.S. was defeated. Nonetheless, the situation of Vietnamese refugees is even more complicated because the political and social climate that existed at the time of the fall of Saigon in 1975 was not always favorable to the Vietnamese. Specifically, the U.S. was in the midst of a recession and many Americans, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, felt that an influx of refugees would only exacerbate the economic difficulties and competition for jobs and social services. Just as important, public opposition to admitting Vietnamese refugees coalesced around the bitter social-psychological aftertaste surrounding the disastrous Viet Nam War. As Loescher and Scanlan put it, “[T]he long and costly U.S. involvement in Vietnam made the American public apathetic, if not hostile, to anything that reminded them of Vietnam and military defeat” (1986:114). Similarly, many Americans had rather mixed feelings because not too long ago, they were taught that the Vietnamese were their enemies and deserved to be killed or, if they were able to make the distinction between North and South Vietnamese, a group to be scorned and pitied. In addition, as the first wave of refugees were being resettled, many Americans became resentful that the Vietnamese refugees were receiving such generous benefits and assistance at taxpayer expense and several racially-motivated attacks against the Vietnamese were documented (Chan 1991; Hing 1993; Zhou and Bankston 1998). Although much of this opposition was countered by positive media portrayals of the refugees’ circumstances, it is this type of ambiguous and even bigoted sentiment targeted at Vietnamese Americans that still forms the basis for much of the prejudice and discrimination they face today. This frequently hostile nature of reception can also interact with individual-level disillusions that many Vietnamese refugees faced, particularly those from the first wave. Because these first arrivals

60


tended to be from Viet Nam’s upper and middle classes and were used to enjoying a certain level of status and accompanying privileges, many experienced a social class shock once they arrived in the U.S. as they struggled to achieve stability and eventual mobility. Combined with the inherent trauma of their departure and the policies of the receiving state, the social class positions of many first wave Vietnamese refugees can have noticeable effects on their assimilation outcomes. This research will examine and these other effects related to cohort differences among Vietnamese Americans. The context of reception is critical to understanding how different ethnic and immigrant groups adjust and assimilate into mainstream American society. Portes and Rumbaut (1996) present a compelling typology and explanation of how immigrant group characteristics, ethnic community dynamics, and host society reception interact with each other to affect assimilation outcomes among immigrant groups. Specifically, they describe three major axes of socioeconomic factors upon the immigrant’s arrival -- government policy (passive acceptance or active support), labor market reception (neutral or positive versus discriminatory), and the ethnic community (none, working class, or professional/entrepreneurial). While their analysis considers Vietnamese Americans to be a relatively successful group in terms of socioeconomic attainment and mobility, as does the research of other scholars (Do 1999; Zhou and Bankston 1998), they confirm that structural-level factors do play significant roles in the assimilation process, a point that we also emphasize in this analysis. THE LARGER CONTEXT OF VIETNMESE AMERICAN CHARACTERISTICS In order to understand the dynamics of Vietnamese American assimilation, we should first examine how Vietnamese Americans as a whole compare to other racial/ethnic groups and to the other four major Asian American groups as a whole that are included in the analysis (Asian Indians, Chinese, Filipinos, and Koreans). Table 2.8 presents selected demographic and socioeconomic characteristics for members


61

Vietnamese

Whites a

Blacks

Latinos

Other Asians d

Table 2.8 Selected Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Vietnamese Americans and Other Racial/Ethnic Groups

N Mean age b % foreign-born U.S. citizen Personal income Family income Living in poverty Mean family size Married, spouse pres.

7,390 31.2 94.5 64.4 $14.0 $51.0 15.9 4.0 53.2

151,714 38.8 3.8 98.4 $21.0 $49.7 11.2 2.6 59.4

211,488 32.1 6.7 96.5 $14.0 $35.3 27.4 2.9 33.1

217,308 27.6 54.0 62.4 $12.0 $36.7 23.1 4.1 48.5

48,103 34.1 85.6 61.0 $18.5 $61.5 13.7 3.7 59.6

Not profic. in English College degree c Less than H.S. c Homeowner c Self-employed Unemployment rate High skill occupation

36.1 20.0 37.8 60.0 8.1 3.0 15.3

0.7 28.4 13.0 81.4 8.9 2.7 14.1

0.8 13.6 29.1 54.4 3.5 6.6 7.3

28.9 9.9 48.5 52.4 5.6 5.6 5.8

17.6 48.9 16.7 62.2 7.9 2.9 26.7

Universe: at least 18 years of age a Tabulated using a 10% random sample of the 2000 5% PUMS b All ages c At least 25 years of age d Includes Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, and Korean e Whites, Blacks, and Other Asians are non-Hispanic f Median incomes in tens of thousands of dollars

of these groups who are at least 18 years of age. The results show that as a whole, Vietnamese Americans are the second youngest of the five comparison groups, are overwhelmingly foreign-born, have the second

62


largest mean family size, and have the highest proportions of not being proficient in English. On most measures, Vietnamese Americans are similar to the other Asian Americans group in terms of percentages of being U.S. citizens, being a homeowner, and being self-employed, as well as mean family size, poverty rate, and unemployment rate. At the same time, Vietnamese Americans trail Other Asian Americans significantly in terms of median personal and family incomes, having a college degree or higher, high school completion, and working in a professional or technical occupation. Nonetheless, we should keep in mind that in many respects, the socioeconomic achievements of Other Asian Americans are the highest of all groups in Table 2.8, even higher than Non-Hispanic Whites. In fact, it is notable that Vietnamese Americans actually have a higher median family income than Whites and have comparable rates of college degree attainment, unemployment, and professional/technical occupation. As a group, Vietnamese Americans can be described as a relatively young population who are overwhelmingly foreign-born but also have relatively high naturalization rates, due mostly to their refugee status and immigration circumstances. In addition, on a per capita basis, the income of Vietnamese Americans lags behind both Whites and other Asian Americans but because they tend to reside within larger families and have relatively low unemployment rates, their median family income is quite high. Nonetheless, there seems to be a sizeable portion of the Vietnamese American community that may still be struggling to attain socioeconomic mobility, as evidenced by their relatively high rates of not being proficient in English and having less than a high school education. At the same time, in addition to their high median family income, Vietnamese Americans are comparable to other Asian Americans and to Non-Hispanic Whites (and are generally above that for NonHispanic Blacks and Latinos/Hispanics) in terms of having a college degree or higher, being a homeowner, being unemployed, and being self-employed. In short, Vietnamese Americans can be considered as part of what we normally would consider the working, middle, and upper-middle classes.


63

Focusing on Vietnamese Americans in detail allows us to ascertain the effects of refugee status specifically on their socioeconomic mobility and assimilation outcomes compared to other Asian American ethnic groups. For instance, they are a product of perhaps the most controversial and humiliating war the U.S. has ever fought -- the only war that the U.S. has ever lost. This distinction by itself contains numerous cultural and political complications and contradictory dynamics. Did American authorities consider the South Vietnamese to be their true allies, implicit enemies, unreliable and unpredictable sheep, or all of the above? These confusing and unclear attitudes are also reflected in the reception most Americans gave Vietnamese refugees at their arrival. In addition, demographic analysis and casual observation show that Vietnamese Americans are one of the fastest growing racial/ethnic groups in the past two decades. This demographic process in turn has numerous political, social, and economic consequences. As such, the treatment they received and the responses of the Vietnamese refugees weave a fascinating picture of intergroup relations and racial/ethnic interactions. CONCLUSION The contemporary history and context of the Vietnamese exodus from communism and subsequent resettlement in the U.S. demonstrates that Vietnamese Americans are a unique political and demographic phenomenon. Among the hundreds of thousands of refugees and immigrants who arrived in the U.S. beginning in 1975, there are several important commonalities and differences as well. They all shared the familiar story of being participants in one of the most significant wars in recent history, desiring to escape communist persecution, and wishing to rebuild their lives in a democratic country. At the same time, the socioeconomic characteristics of many Vietnamese arrivals differed considerably. Demographic evidence and results from the Census 2000 document that the first wave was indeed largely composed of the elite from Vietnamese society, including large numbers of professionals, government officials, military officers, and their families. This initial wave of Vietnamese refugees was followed by successive waves of refugees and immigrants who, like their first wave

64


counterparts, were abandoning their lives in Viet Nam to create new lives in the U.S. but who differed in several notable socioeconomic characteristics. At the same time, the structural context and social environment into which they arrived was also changing. The national economy evolved each year after the first refugees arrived in 1975, as did the development of a burgeoning Vietnamese American ethnic community. With all of these variables in constant change, our task is to analyze how these structural- and community-level factors affected the various assimilation outcomes for members of the Vietnamese American community. This question now takes center stage in the next several chapters.

CHAPTER THREE

Climbing the Ladder: Income, Occupation, and Prestige Attainment The first set of assimilation patterns that this book will analyze are basic socioeconomic outcomes. Perhaps the most direct measure of immigrant assimilation and incorporation is socioeconomic attainment and mobility. We might say that the foundation upon which other types of assimilation largely depend (marital, entrepreneurial, and residential) is socioeconomic assimilation. Asian Americans represent an interesting case of socioeconomic assimilation in that a large proportion of the Asian American population is comprised of recent immigrants but within their relatively short tenure as participants in American society and economy, many have attained extraordinary levels of socioeconomic success and mobility. The questions become: what factors are responsible for this phenomenon, how do these factors differ among the different Asian ethnic groups, and to what degree can these patterns predict socioeconomic outcomes in the future? Within this context however, we must confront the issue of causality. That is, in analyzing the question of how different Asian ethnic group members achieve socioeconomic mobility in their lives as Asian Americans, how do we distinguish between, on the one hand, highly-educated and affluent Asian immigrants who come to the U.S., immediately obtain high-paying employment, and purchase comfortable homes in the suburbs, and, on the other, refugees who hastily and involuntarily left their native country under duress and who had little if any time to prepare for life in the U.S. but after several years or even decades attain socioeconomic success? Do we consider the former case to be more socioeconomically assimilated even though s/he came to the U.S. already possessing significant resources, or is the latter case evidence for greater socioeconomic assimilation since more of his/her mobility was achieved after arriving in the U.S.? To address this potential quandary, this analysis separates members of the five major Asian ethnic groups into those who are either U.S.-born or the 1.5 generation who came to the U.S. at age 12 or younger (“U.S.-raised”) and those who immigrated to the U.S. after age 65

66


12 (“foreign-raised”). This classification will help us to disaggregate the experiences of older Asian immigrants from those of younger Asian Americans who grew up in the U.S. and spent the bulk of their human capital development and socioeconomic mobility process within the structure and context of American society. The goals are to determine (1) how Vietnamese Americans compare to the four other Asian ethnic groups in the analysis on various measures of socioeconomic attainment and assimilation across both genders and U.S.- and foreignraised categories and, (2) how human and social capital advantages and disadvantages that distinguish each Asian group are rewarded or penalized in terms of three socioeconomic assimilation outcomes -personal income, employment in an executive or senior management occupation, and living in poverty. The early history of Asians in American in fact centers on efforts to overcome employment and occupational discrimination in the quest to achieve socioeconomic assimilation. As the Asian American population increased significantly after the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act, so too did the importance and sociological ramifications of occupational attainment, employment discrimination, and socioeconomic attainment among Asian Americans. Simply put, as their numbers got bigger, so too did their impact in the American economy and workplace, especially in the major urban areas where Asian Americans were expanding their presence and developing their own enclaves. Within this framework, Asian Americans have employed and continue to employ diverse strategies to attain socioeconomic attainment and mobility. Reflecting the diversity of demographic characteristics and differences in their levels of human and social capital, different Asian ethnic groups have achieved varying levels of income and occupational success. The goal is to determine how which demographic and socioeconomic advantages or disadvantages are differently rewarded or penalized among Asian American groups.

Occupation, Income, and Prestige Attainment

67

MACROSTRUCTURAL FRAMEWORK OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY Sociologists and other social scientists have long studied various outcomes including personal income, occupation in well-paying and stable jobs, and living in poverty as standard measures of socioeconomic attainment and mobility. We also see that in recent decades, more of these analyses compare such measures and outcomes among men and women and among different racial/ethnic minority groups. Several broad economic and demographic developments in recent years have shaped the general context within which we currently examine measures of socioeconomic assimilation in this study. One is the deindustrialization of the economy from the traditional model based on manufacturing to a postindustrial model that emphasizes services, technological innovations, and the management and exchange of information. This process of deindustrialization began in earnest in the 1970s following the energy crises of that decade and accelerated in the 1980s as forms of production began to rely extensively on technological advances and organizations extensively restructured in an effort to compete in the global marketplace and leverage the dynamics of international capital investment, leading to the U.S. and the rest of the world to enter the postindustrial age (Kasarda 1995; Sassen 1988; Sassen 1991). One of the principal characteristics of this restructuring of the national economy involves a marked bifurcation or segmentation of the labor market, the second major economic shift that frames the current research on socioeconomic assimilation. Specifically, rather than having a large number of blue collar manufacturing jobs that provided successive generations with gainful employment, workers now confront an employment structure in which there is a growing number of occupational opportunities for candidates who are well educated and have advanced job skills particularly in using and managing increasingly complex forms of information, so called “knowledge workers,” and on the other end, large numbers of low wage and low skill jobs in the secondary labor market, some of which support the lifestyles of more affluent workers. The middle sector of stable manufacturing and production jobs is in increased danger of contraction in the postindustrial age, leaving general skill workers of all ethnicities

68


with fewer consistent modes of economic mobility. While there is still debate on the full extent and specific ramifications of this economic restructuring, most scholars agree that these postindustrial tendencies are reshaping the economy. As many researchers note, the postindustrial economy has the strong potential to exacerbate economic and social inequalities between unskilled and semi-skilled workers on the one hand and workers skilled in information management on the other hand (Levy 1995; Wetzel 1995). As applied to the process of socioeconomic assimilation, this situation is argued to make it more difficult for ethnic minorities and immigrants to achieve socioeconomic mobility from one generation to the next and to move from the working classes to the ranks of the middle class. This is because, traditionally, ethnic minorities have been the most susceptible to economic restructuring and shifts in the organization of occupational opportunities (Bonacich 1984; Sassen 1991; Wilson 1987; Wilson 1996). Primarily located in central cities, the emerging “underclass” includes Blacks as the predominant disadvantaged actors in the deindustrialization process. The third major structural shift that has significantly impacted the American economy in recent decades is the influx of millions of new immigrants into the labor force and cities around the U.S. since the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act. As scholars of immigration and race/ethnicity have consistently noted for the last few decades, the addition of approximately 20 million immigrants from Mexico, Asia, Central America, the Caribbean, and Europe has dramatically changed the fundamental nature of America’s labor force and the contemporary dynamics of employment in many major metropolitan areas (Chiswick and Sullivan 1995; Portes and Rumbaut 1996; Waldinger and Lee 2001; Zhou 2001). The extant research on immigrant workers finds that they possess very diverse characteristics. That is, while many arrive in the U.S. with high levels of education, occupational skills, and English proficiency, many others lack these basic human capital traits and end up in perceived competition with native-born Black and Latino workers for the scarce economic opportunities at the bottom portion of the hourglass economy (see Freidberg and Hunt 1995; Lim 2001; Reimers 1998). Indeed, within this context, Horton and his


69

collaborators suggest that demographic changes in the population of ethnic minorities interact with changes in the social structure to reinforce, perpetuate, and exacerbate ethnic inequalities (Horton 1999; Horton et al. 2000). CONTEMPORARY ASIAN AMERICAN SOCIOECONOMIC ASSIMILATION Within the contemporary economic and occupational framework, recent research indicates that Asian immigrants are some of the most and some of the least educated and occupationally skilled of all contemporary immigrants (Jensen and Chitose 1996; Portes and Rumbaut 1996). This level of stratification among Asian immigrants of course differs by national origin, with some Asian immigrant groups having higher levels of human capital than others. Some scholars argue that contemporary immigrants are of lesser “quality” compared to immigrants of previous years in terms of relative educational attainment, level of income, poverty rates, use of public assistance, and occupational mobility (Borjas 1985; Borjas 1995). Using case studies of American Blacks, Caribbean Blacks, and Latinos, other scholars posit that skin color may play a role in an ethnic group’s socioeconomic mobility. For instance, sociological research seems to demonstrate that within racial/ethnic groups, members who have lighter skin tone frequently enjoy a lower incidence of prejudice and discrimination, more access to social spaces that have been or continue to be predominantly White, and higher socioeconomic achievement (Browne 1999; Keith and Herring 1991; Moore and Pinderhughes 1993; Portes and Bach 1985; Portes and Stepick 1993). Although no research has extended these findings to the Asian American community, a superficial categorization of Asian ethnic groups by skin tone seems to reveal that country of origin is loosely associated with skin color for Asians. That is, East Asians with lighter skin tone (i.e., Japanese, Chinese, and Korean) as a group may show slightly higher socioeconomic achievement levels compared to Southeast Asians who tend to have darker skin tones (i.e., Vietnamese and Filipinos), although South Asians are an obvious exception . While the present research cannot test empirically for skin tone variation among Asian Americans since the Census data does not

70


record such information, this hypothesis deserves closer inspection in future research. The first examples of research into the education, occupational, and income attainment patterns of Asian Americans by scholars such as Hirschman and Wong (1981; 1986), Hune (1977), Model (1988), and Nee and Sanders (1985) sketched an emerging pattern of remarkable attainment and mobility patterns among Asian Americans (although mostly Chinese and Japanese initially). In fact, many observers concluded that based on these patterns of high socioeconomic achievement, Asian Americans did conform to the “model minority” thesis as high-achieving immigrants who had successfully attained the “American dream” through hard work and perseverance, rather than political confrontation and agitation (Barringer, Gardner and Levin 1995; Bates and Dunham 1993; Chan 1991; Yamanaka and McClelland 1994). For example, many studies report that there seems to be a certain degree of disjuncture between Asians’ human capital and their actual income attainment (Barringer, Takeuchi and Xenos 1990; Cabezas 1990; Tang 1993). That is, while Asian American men and women were outperforming their White counterparts in terms of college degree attainment, they were not receiving income returns on their educational investment equivalent to those of Whites. Critics argue that the image of Asian Americans as the “model minority” is ultimately superficial and empirically short-sighted and further point out that the much of this inequality is due directly to subtle but real mechanisms of racial/ethnic and gender bias that are fundamentally embedded into organizational practices, economic structures, and political institutions and get played out in the form of glass ceiling constraints and outright employment discrimination. Similarly, many of these same researchers point out that while many Asian Americans may be attaining occupations that are commensurate with their educational credentials (i.e., attaining professional or technical occupations), many Asians in professional or technical positions frequently find that the proverbial glass ceiling blocks their vertical movement and promotion into senior ranks of management and executive positions. As studies point out, many Asian American professionals and others in “high skill” occupations,


71

especially immigrants, find that in the process of striving toward executive/senior management positions, they are bypassed by conventional outreach and recruitment practices, are institutionally tracked and segregated into certain types of occupations that inhibit further promotion, are excluded from informal social and organizational networks that are critical for vertical mobility, are assumed to have a lack of interest in senior managerial or executive positions, are alleged to have language, communication, or leadership deficiencies, and are subjected to different and frequently biased standards for performance evaluation (Fong 1998; Nelson 1988; Tang 1993; Woo 2002; Wu 1997). These scholars add that this persistent bias is directed at not just immigrants specifically but at virtually all Asian Americans, regardless of generation, in the same way that employment and occupational discrimination is consistently directed at Blacks, regardless of nativity. Moreover, Asian American women may suffer a “double jeopardy” of being identified as both a racial/ethnic minority and as women and sometimes add the “triple threat” of being immigrants who not only have to adjust to a new society but also adapt to changing new gender roles within this context (Hondagneu-Sotelo 1994; Kibria 1993). Like their male counterparts, Asian American women consistently have higher college degree attainment rates than White women but are not rewarded with incomes commensurate with their educational qualifications. As Woo (2002:18) points out, “For Asian women, education serves less as an opportunity for mobility than as a hedge against jobs as service workers, machine operatives, or assembly workers” and later, “Asian American women are more likely than other women of color to have a graduate education and yet are the least likely to be at the most senior levels of management.” Indeed, there seems to be a marked bifurcation of Asian American female labor force (perhaps even more so than among Asian American men) in which there is on the one hand a large group who have acquired substantial educational credentials, human capital investment, and occupational attainment (albeit without commensurate income rewards) and, on the other, an equally large group of mainly older immigrant women who are concentrated in the secondary labor market (Chow 1994; Wong and Hirschman 1983; Yamanaka and McClelland 1994).

72


However, in more recent years, several studies describe and document how these patterns of educational, occupational, and income attainment are much more nuanced that they defy simple conclusions (see Iceland 1999; Kao and Thompson 2003; Sakamoto and Furuichi 2002; Sakamoto and Xie 2006; Sanders, Nee and Sernau 2002; Xie and Goyette 2003; Xie and Goyette 2004; Zeng and Xie 2004). An emerging consensus seems to be that in order to fully understand the socioeconomic attainment patterns of Asian Americans, we have to disaggregate this population by gender and nativity. In other words, based on these categorizations, the general pattern seems to be that while Asian immigrant men and women still seem to experience a measurable degree of income inequality (most likely due to unrecognized educational and/or occupational credentials obtained in their home country, less-than-fluent English skills, and/or a lack of “soft skills” related to communication, attitude, and behavior patterns), U.S.-born Asian American men and women do not exhibit much, if any, income inequality at all compared to non-Hispanic Whites, and in many cases, actually outperform Whites even after controlling for many factors (Sakamoto and Xie 2006; Zeng and Xie 2004). At the same time, within this context and as new analyses disaggregated the Asian American category into more specific ethnic groups to include Southeast Asians (and in particular Vietnamese Americans), one pattern still holds true -- Vietnamese tended to lag behind most other Asian American groups in terms of socioeconomic attainment and mobility (Cheng and Yang 1996; Do 1999; Gold and Kibria 1993; Haines 1987; Hein 1995; Madamba 1998; Rumbaut 1995; Strand and Jones 1985; Zhou and Bankston 1992). The most cited reason for this inequality centered on the refugee experiences of the Vietnamese and how, as involuntary immigrants, they did not have the same selectivity in terms of human capital that characterized other Asian immigrants. Since then, an emerging 1.5 and second generation of Vietnamese Americans has begun to acquire educational credentials and to enter the job mainstream job market. This presents us with an opportunity to measure their socioeconomic attainment patterns separately from that of their parents in order to determine how they


73

compare with other Asian Americans in different aspects of socioeconomic assimilation and incorporation. METHODOLOGY Using data from the 2000 Census PUMS (see the Introduction chapter for a detailed discussion of the 2000 Census), after describing the general demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of foreign- and U.S.-born Asian American ethnic groups, I conduct multivariate regression analysis with personal income (logged to control for nonlinear effects), the likelihood of working in a high skill occupation, and Duncan’s SEI score (again see the Introduction for a more detailed description of these variables) as the dependent variables. I then compare the effects that various independent variables have upon these dependent variables across the five Asian ethnic groups and both genders. One research goal is to determine to what extent Vietnamese, either foreign- or U.S.-raised, rely more on certain factors that affect socioeconomic assimilation outcomes. Further, the research analyzes the extent to which Vietnamese human and social capital advantages and disadvantages are rewarded or penalized differently than that for other Asian Americans. Specifically, for all three dependent variables (logged personal income, likelihood of working in a high skill occupation, and Duncan’s SEI score), independent variables include male, age, years in the U.S. (for foreign-raised), U.S. birth (for U.S.raised) and human capital measures such as not being proficient in English (respondents who coded their English fluency as “not at all” or “not well”), college degree or higher attainment, having less than a high school education, and being unemployed. Social capital variables that represent the influence of communitylevel and/or ethnic-based resources include being a U.S. citizen (a proxy for cultural assimilation), family size (indicating the degree to which having a large family assists in or detracts from socioeconomic attainment), being married with spouse present, and living in the Los Angeles, New York, or San Francisco CMSAs (a proxy for living close to or participating in an Asian ethnic enclave to explore how community-level factors and ethnic resources may influence outcomes). Being self-employed and working in an professional services industry also measure how sector of employment is related to

74


occupational attainment for Asian Americans. Industry is included to highlight whether certain occupational industries have larger effects on the socioeconomic attainment levels of Asians than others, especially after controlling for type of occupation and self-employment. In addition to these factors, variables that may affect income include working in a high skill occupation, or working in the garment, grocery/restaurant, or retail industry. Finally, for all three outcomes, Asian group identity is also used as a rough proxy for cultural traits, ethnic resources, and/or social capital that may affect socioeconomic assimilation outcomes. In addition and in order to complement comparisons among Asian ethnic groups, the results for Vietnamese Americans will also be compared to similar analyses for non-Hispanic Whites. This comparison will highlight aspects of inequality and discrimination that operate against Vietnamese Americans vis-à-vis non-Hispanic Whites as the standard reference group as well. We should note of course that because this research, like Census data in general, is cross-sectional in nature, it can only present a snapshot of socioeconomic attainment and assimilation among Asian Americans. Nonetheless, the data has the potential to find consistent patterns between different Asian groups that may reappear across each of the three outcomes. In doing so, this analysis will illuminate how Vietnamese Americans compare vis-à-vis their other Asian counterparts in terms of structural assimilation patterns. RESULTS Descriptive Statistics Tables 3.1 and 3.2 show selected demographic and socioeconomic characteristics for foreign-raised and U.S.-raised Asian American adults from the five ethnic groups in question, respectively. Looking at foreign-raised Asian Americans in Table 3.1, we find that Asian Indians seem to be the most socioeconomically assimilated, as they have some of the highest personal incomes, college attainment rates, and rates of working in a high skill occupation and professional


75

services industry. Conversely, foreign-raised Vietnamese have the lowest married with spouse present rate, the highest proportion who lack English proficiency, the highest rates of having less than a high school education, the lowest college degree attainment rates and lowest

As. Indians

Chinese

Filipinos

Koreans

Vietnamese

N Mean age (all ages) Mean years in the U.S. U.S. citizen Mean family size Married, spo. present LA, NY, or SF CMSA Homeowners Not English proficient Less than high school a College degree a Personal income Family income Living in poverty Self-employed b High skill occupation b Professional svcs ind. b Enclave industry b

Whites

Table 3.1 Selected Characteristics of Foreign-Raised Racial/Ethnic Groups

59,315 49.2 27.8 59.1 2.6 64.2 22.4 68.7 11.4 22.3 31.4 $20.0 $50.0 12.0 15.8 27.9 22.1 40.7

8,823 40.8 11.9 39.5 3.5 74.5 26.2 56.7 8.9 13.2 64.3 $24.0 $67.0 9.3 10.9 51.9 30.2 19.3

11,678 45.9 14.9 53.2 3.3 68.4 52.2 63.6 37.9 28.1 42.6 $15.6 $52.0 15.9 11.3 40.1 21.5 29.2

9,655 47.7 16.6 64.0 3.9 64.1 38.6 68.3 8.2 14.3 44.9 $21.0 $66.0 6.7 5.8 29.2 20.0 17.1

5,308 45.4 15.3 47.7 3.1 72.0 40.3 52.1 38.5 15.7 40.5 $13.2 $45.0 17.7 27.2 23.2 14.6 42.0

5,797 43.4 13.1 60.3 4.1 61.3 37.2 50.2 44.1 41.2 16.5 $15.0 $50.0 14.5 11.3 19.4 11.0 28.5

Population: At least 21 years of age unless otherwise noted At least 25 years of age Employed only b Median personal and family incomes in tens of thousands of dollars a

b

rate of working in a high-skill occupation. The only instance in which Vietnamese outperform other foreign-raised Asians is in regard to

76


poverty rates, which may suggest that Vietnamese are able to maximize the benefits of being in large families (highest of all foreign-raised Asian groups) and pool their resources to minimize their poverty rates. Alternatively, it may also indicate a higher degree of reliance on various government assistance programs. Further, as shown in Table 3.1, among the foreign-raised, non-Hispanic Whites have consistently higher levels of socioeconomic attainment than Vietnamese (with the exception of a tie in median family income). In other words, the descriptive results show that although the socioeconomic picture for foreign-raised Vietnamese isn’t entirely bleak, they still tend to have lower levels of socioeconomic assimilation in comparison to the achievement levels for other Asian Americans and to non-Hispanic Whites. In light of these results, we might point out that foreign-raised Vietnamese tend to exhibit more socioeconomic disadvantages primarily because of their refugee status. Specifically, many foreign-raised Vietnamese may have arrived too old to maximize their human and social capital resources to succeed in the U.S. labor market or they simply were not able to prepare themselves beforehand for entry into it. As other sociologists point out, this makes them intrinsically different from other Asian immigrant groups who are better able to capitalize on their skills and other resources for attempts at success in the U.S. labor market. The results for U.S.-raised Asian Americans in Table 3.2 indicate that there seems to be a slightly higher degree of parity between Asian groups. In general, the numbers for Vietnamese Americans improve relative to their foreign-raised counterparts in Table 3.1, to the other U.S.-raised Asian ethnic groups, and relative to Whites as well. For example, while there are still instances in which U.S.-raised Vietnamese Americans are outperformed by most other Asian groups, their level of disadvantage does not seem to be as great and is not as profound relative to other U.S.-raised groups as in the case of their foreign-raised counterparts. Specifically, Vietnamese hold their own in comparison to the other U.S.-raised Asian groups in terms of poverty rates, homeownership, unemployment, and working in a high-skill occupation or a professional services industry. In fact, although direct comparisons are somewhat tenuous due to the fact that Vietnamese


77

tend to be younger, U.S.-raised Vietnamese have attainment levels quite comparable to Whites in regard to college degree attainment, median family income, high-skill occupation, and professional services industry. In short, although there are still areas in which they lag behind other Asians and Whites, the socioeconomic prospects for U.S.raised Vietnamese appear to be favorable.

Chinese

Filipinos

Koreans

Vietnamese

N

As. Indians

Whites

Table 3.2 Selected Characteristics of U.S.-Raised Racial/Ethnic Groups

1,445

3,708

3,249

1,494

1,138

Mean age (all ages)

38.4

14.3

21.8

20.3

17.5

14.7

U.S.-born

99.2

49.5

63.1

32.2

38.2

20.8

2.6

3.0

2.9

3.4

2.6

3.2

62.1

36.9

45.2

41.7

33.1

32.9

Mean family size Married, spo. present LA, NY, or SF CMSA

4.7

24.5

51.4

34.8

36.8

38.8

78.5

57.6

73.5

65.0

55.0

60.6

Not English proficient

0.3

1.7

3.8

1.8

3.3

5.6

Less than high school a

15.0

8.0

7.0

8.6

4.7

14.0

Homeowners

College degree a

25.1

65.6

60.0

34.7

58.2

44.8

Personal income

$22.5

$18.0

$30.0

$22.0

$21.2

$18.0

Family income

$47.8

$72.0

$70.0

$63.0

$55.0

$60.0

10.1

17.4

11.0

10.7

16.2

16.3

Living in poverty b

12.1

7.3

7.9

4.2

9.3

6.4

High skill occupation b

20.4

45.4

45.3

25.6

35.5

34.3

Professional svcs ind. b

18.2

33.6

31.9

23.6

28.6

28.2

Enclave industry b

31.8

19.3

29.2

17.1

42.0

28.5

Self-employed

Population: At least 21 years of age unless otherwise noted At least 25 years of age b Employed only b Median personal and family incomes in tens of thousands of dollars a

78


Regression Results: Asian Group Comparisons Tables 3.3 and 3.4 present the results of multivariate regression results on factors that affect logged personal income, the likelihood of working in a high skill occupation, and Duncan’s SEI score, for foreign-raised and U.S.-raised Asian ethnic groups, respectively (with non-Hispanic Whites again included as a comparison). In Table 3.3 for foreignraised Asian ethnic groups, in regard to personal income, we would expect the usual host of human and social capital factors to have positive effects (i.e., being male, years in the U.S., being a U.S. citizen, married with spouse present, living in the LA, NY, or SF metropolitan areas, college degree attainment, high skill occupation, and professional services industry). Conversely, factors such as large family size, lack of English proficiency, and working in one of the various “ethnic enclave-associated” industries (garment, grocery/restaurant, personal services, and retail) should have negative effects on income. The results show that in virtually all cases, our expectations are fulfilled across all five Asian groups. Nonetheless, comparing between Asian groups, we should first recognize that foreign-raised Vietnamese tend to have some initial socioeconomic advantages (as evidenced by their relatively large intercept). As such, they experience very small gains or very larges penalties when it comes to being male and working in the garment, grocery/restaurant, and personal services industries. On most other measures, Vietnamese exhibit middle-of-the-road effects relative to other Asian groups and compared to other foreign-raised Whites as well. Overall, while foreign-raised Vietnamese seem to suffer some disadvantages and inequalities relative to other Asian groups, the discrepancies may not be as large as we might have predicted from their refugee background. This is especially true when the results show that foreign-raised Vietnamese compare quite favorably to nonHispanic Whites in many areas of returns on income. When it comes to the likelihood of working in a high-skill occupation for foreign-raised Asian Americans, our same set of expectations about factors with positive and negative effects can


79

Filipinos

Koreans

Vietnamese

Personal Income Intercept Male Years in the U.S. U.S. citizen Family size Married, spo. present LA, NY, or SF CMSA Not English proficient Less than high school College degree Homeowner Self-employed High skill occupation Professional svcs ind. Enclave industry

9.31 .41** .01**

9.39 .25** .02**

.62** .11** -.09**

.46** .07** -.20**

R2 N (x1000)

.265 22.6

.310 5.5

High Skill Occupation Intercept Male Years in the U.S. U.S. citizen Family size Married, spo. present LA, NY, or SF CMSA

9.53 -.60** .01** .04** -.13** .37** -.14**

9.23 .46** .02**

9.53 -.60** .01** .04** -.03** .16** -.24** -.13** .25** .33** -.05** .48** .27** -.17**

As. Indians

9.52 .26** .02** .10** -.02**

-.14 .28** .30**

9.30 .33** .02** .11** -.02** .07** .07** -.21** -.11** .32** .37**

Whites

Chinese

Table 3.3 Factors Affecting Socioeconomic Assimilation Outcomes by Foreign-Raised Racial/Ethnic Group

9.23 .46** .02** -.03** .16** .12** **

-.15** .20* -.19*

.09** -.13** -.19** .17** .17**

-.02** .11** -.15**

.55**

.18** .33** .14** .43**

.27** .22** .08* .46**

-.24**

-.20**

-.30**

.361 6.6

.276 5.7

.221 2.8

.339 3.2

9.30 .33** .02** .11** -.07** .24** -.27**

9.52 .26** .02** .10** -.06**

9.31 .41** .01**

9.39 .25** .02**

-.20**

-.10** .25* .38**

80


R2 a*

p≤.05;

**

p≤.01;

b

Koreans

3.6 5.5

1.6 5.6

.9 2.3

1.3 2.0

45.10

30.55

42.72 1.60*

.06* -1.60** -.29** 1.06* -1.51** -8.75** -8.00** 22.4**

.19** 1.60* -.68** 1.95** 1.43* -5.10** -10.8** 15.0**

29.53 1.40* .14*

-6.83** -9.51** 16.1**

-.36** .60** -1.74**

26.7 73.2

2.3 5.5

40.52

41.96 2.96** .08*

-.98** -2.25** 2.01** .18** -.23** 1.00** -1.12**

-1.22** -1.11** 1.97**

Vietnamese

Filipinos

Duncan’s SEI Score Intercept Male Years in the U.S. U.S. citizen Family size Married, spo. present LA, NY, or SF CMSA Not English proficient Less than high school College degree Homeowner Self-employed Professional svcs ind. Enclave industry

-1.10** -1.26** 2.03**

.07** -1.70**

-.68** -1.50** 1.49** .35** -.43** .67** -1.68**

Chinese

χ2 (x1000) -2 Log Likel’d (x1000)

-.95** -1.97** 1.83** .27**

-.95** -1.25** 2.14** .22** -.36** .27** -1.65**

Whites High Skill Occupation Not English proficient Less than high school College degree Homeowner Self-employed Professional svcs ind. Enclave industry

As. Indians

Table 3.3 Factors Affecting Socioeconomic Assimilation Outcomes by Foreign-Raised Racial/Ethnic Group (continued)

.72** -1.83**

-.57** 2.16** 1.48** -13.0** -8.80** 19.7** 3.18** .90** 15.4** -8.91**

-1.08** 2.06** -2.60* -7.55** -9.12** 20.9** 2.03** 6.26** 10.0** -6.83**

7.67** 12.5** -10.1**

3.11** 16.4** -6.29**

7.16** 13.9** -7.03**

2.57* -5.85** -5.70** 24.8** 2.65** 3.35** 18.9** -7.46**

.356

.367

.536

.291

.292

.449

2.40**

Population: at least 25 years of age and Employed


81

generally be applied here as well. Also similar to the results on income, there do not seem to be many surprises when it comes to which factors affect the likelihood of working in a high skill occupation, with a couple of exceptions. Specifically, the results from Table 3.3 show that contrary to our expectations, years in the U.S. had a negative effect for Chinese and being a U.S. citizen had surprisingly negative effects for Asian Indians and Chinese. This may reflect that a large portion of recent immigrants from China and India are professionals and already have high skill occupations (many may have H1-B visas, for example) while Asian Indians and Chinese who arrived earlier and have already become U.S. citizens are less likely to be from professional backgrounds. We also note that in living in the LA, NY, or SF areas has a negative effect for Asian Indians, Chinese, and Filipinos while a positive one for Vietnamese. This finding suggests that for the former three Asian groups, these three metropolitan areas, home to the largest Asian ethnic enclaves in the country, are more likely to have large numbers of “enclave-associated” occupations, as opposed to high-skill ones. Conversely, Vietnamese ethnic enclaves in these areas tend to be less well-developed and, therefore, may contain a high proportion of high skill occupations and/or may not contain many jobs. Interestingly, the results for the high skill occupation model in Table 3.3 also show that the disadvantages foreign-raised Vietnamese may experience due to their refugee status become less severe and even disappear entirely when it comes to factors affecting high-skill employment. For example, Vietnamese experience some of the highest penalties for lack of English proficiency and being self-employed. However, after taking into account their regression coefficients and intercepts in Table 3.3 on high skill occupation, Vietnamese have comparable returns for increased family size and for being a homeowner. In addition, Vietnamese exhibit high returns on living in the LA/NY/SF CMSAs, having a college degree, and working in a professional services industry. In short, it appeara that vis-à-vis other Asian groups, foreign-raised Vietnamese have a slightly easier time translating their human and social capital into high skill occupations than into personal income. Further, Vietnamese once again compare favorably to non-Hispanic Whites in terms of being male, living in the LA/NY/SF CMSAs, college degree attainment, being a homeowner, and working in a professional services industry.

82


This emerging pattern of improved Vietnamese socioeconomic assimilation continues in the last section of Table 3.3 that presents factors that affect Duncan’s SEI score. Once again, our expectations for factors positively and negatively affecting income and high-skill occupation apply to SEI score and once again virtually all results confirm such expectations. However, it is somewhat surprising to find that there does not seem to be a single instance in which foreign-raised Vietnamese significantly trail other Asian groups. In fact, the results reveal that to the contrary, after consideration of the intercepts in their model, Vietnamese exhibit one of, if not the largest gains or smallest penalties among all Asian groups when it comes to citizenship, living in the LA/NY/SF CMSAs, less than high school completion, college degree attainment, and garment, professional services, and retail industries. In relation to Whites, foreign-raised Vietnamese seem to lag on some measures (i.e., living in the LA/NY/SF CMSAs and lack of English proficiency) but compare quite favorably to Whites in regard to the effects of less than high school completion, being self-employed, working in the professional services and retail industries, and perhaps most importantly, college degree attainment. Looking at the same outcomes for U.S.-raised Asian American ethnic groups in Table 3.4, the results did not produce any surprising findings in regard to factors that we would expect to affect income. Further, the data show some interesting comparisons among Asian groups, although we should note that U.S.-raised Asian Americans tended to be much younger than foreign-raised Asians (but at the same time, the analysis for both groups set minimum ages for each outcome). Specifically, with logged personal income as the dependent variable, the results show that U.S.-raised Vietnamese seem to lag behind the four other Asian groups on only one measure -- returns to being married with spouse present. Otherwise and especially in consideration of their initial position relative to other Asian groups (as indicated by the intercepts in their respective models), U.S.-raised Vietnamese seem to be at quite comparable to the other Asian groups in terms of returns to income from living in the LA/NY/SF CMSAs, being a homeowner, and working in a high-skill occupation. Compared to Whites, U.S.raised Vietnamese seem to trail Whites in terms of returns on being


83

male and living in the LA/NY/SF CMSAs, but compare very favorably when it comes to being married with spouse present, less than high school completion, college degree attainment, and high skill employment. With the likelihood of working in a high skill occupation as the dependent variable, Table 3.4 shows that although U.S.-raised Vietnamese do not display as many significant effects, there is not one instance in which they significantly trail other Asian groups, and in fact, they exhibit comparable returns for being male, working in a professional services industry, and having a college degree. This finding is especially compelling after factoring in that Vietnamese seem to start from a slightly disadvantaged position, as indicated by the intercept in this particular model. Further, U.S.-raised Vietnamese compare quite advantageously to Whites in terms of experiencing high benefits from being male and having a college degree or higher. The results on factors associated with Duncan’s SEI score show similar patterns. As with the previous two socioeconomic assimilation outcomes, U.S.-raised Vietnamese compare quite favorably to other Asians and to non-Hispanic Whites as well. For instance, Vietnamese exhibit average returns on most measures and a very high benefit from having a college degree. Interestingly, age tended to have negative effects for almost all U.S.-raised Asian groups when it comes to high skill occupation and SEI score but not for income, where age has positive effects for all groups except Vietnamese. Further, while age has a negative effect for Chinese, Filipinos, and Koreans on SEI score, it has a positive effect for Whites. These findings may reflect that U.S.-raised Asians still tend to be relatively young and that incomes for the small number of older U.S.-raised Asians are lower, perhaps due to lower levels of human capital. Regression Results: Gender and Nativity Comparisons The preceding section gave us a better picture of factors that are associated with socioeconomic assimilation for distinct Asian ethnic groups. The final step is to determine if these same factors are

84


.263 812.5

-2.19** .39** -.00** -.15* -.02** .18** -.18**

High Skill Occupation Intercept Male Age U.S.-born Family size Married, spo. present LA, NY, or SF CMSA

Vietnamese

Koreans

R2 N (x1000)

Filipinos

9.51 .56** .01** -.08** -.02** .04** .30** -.37** -.27** .34** .20** -.15** .40** .32** -.20**

Chinese

Personal Income Intercept Male Age U.S.-born Family size Married, spo. present LA, NY, or SF CMSA Not English proficient Less than high school College degree Homeowner Self-employed High skill occupation Professional svcs ind. Enclave industry

As. Indians

Whites

Table 3.4 Factors Affecting Socioeconomic Assimilation Outcomes by U.S.Raised Racial/Ethnic Group

9.16 .47** .01**

9.37 .29** .01**

9.56 .18** .01**

9.39 .28** .02**

-.06** .28** .20**

-.04** .24** .14**

-.05** .20** .14**

-.04** .20** .19** -.48**

**

**

.36 .23**

-.24** .23** .19**

**

.31 .22**

-.27** .37** .30**

.40** .11**

.39** .07** -.19**

.36**

.33**

.41**

.231 .7

.232 2.2

.194 1.8

.263 .8

.334 .5

-.60** .39*

-.75** .35** -.02** -.23* -.11** .39**

-1.58** -.25* -.01*

-1.09** .46**

-1.68**

.39

9.22 .37**

.23**

-.31**

-.04** .53**


85

Filipinos

Koreans

Vietnamese

1.68**

1.55** .32*

1.64**

1.94**

-.42** .69** -1.28**

.52** -.96**

.65** -1.41**

.65** -1.01*

.2 .8

.6 2.5

.4 1.9

.2 .9

.2 .6

54.27

53.12

55.22

49.47

-.11*

49.86 -3.05** -.16**

-.67* 2.63*

-.99** 4.13**

4.21**

-8.33** -10.6** 17.9**

-7.52** 17.6**

-15.5** 18.4**

-11.8** 20.9**

2.94* 3.86* -10.3**

5.75** 5.55** -6.25**

5.39** -9.22**

4.74** -9.95**

.310

.272

.317

.429

Not English proficient Less than high school College degree Homeowner Self-employed Professional svcs ind. Enclave industry

-1.31** 1.53** .29** -.20** 1.75** -.81**

-1.33** 1.71**

χ2 (x1000) -2 Log Likel’d (x1000)

85.3 473.2

40.80 -4.18** .02** -1.97** -.39** 2.95** 4.99**

Whites

As. Indians

Chinese

Table 3.4 Factors Affecting Socioeconomic Assimilation Outcomes by U.S.Raised Racial/Ethnic Group (continued)

Duncan’s SEI Score Intercept Male Age U.S.-born Family size Married, spo. present LA, NY, or SF CMSA Not English proficient Less than high school College degree Homeowner Self-employed Professional svcs ind. Enclave industry R2 a b

*

**

-1.73

**

-1.08*

**

-11.5 20.9** 2.36** -2.32** 13.2** -4.27**

-17.0 17.8**

.303

.281

-7.59

**

p≤.05; **p≤.01 Population: at least 25 years of age and Employed

-.25*

86


differently associated for men and women (in addition to nativity as well). Tables 3.5 through 3.8 present regressions results on the three socioeconomic outcomes (logged personal income, high skill occupation, and SEI score) by nativity and gender. Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show results for foreign-raised Asian American men and women, respectively. In the case of foreign-raised Asian men, as we might have expected, years in the U.S., being married with spouse present, living in the LA/NY/SF CMSAs, having a college degree or higher, being a homeowner, being self-employed, and working in a high skill occupation or professional services industry all had positive effects on with logged personal income. The negative effects on income were family size, lack of English proficiency, less than high school completion, and working in an ethnic enclave-associated industry (garment, grocery/restaurant, personal services, and/or retail), all of which are generally consistent with our expectations. In addition, the results point out that with Vietnamese as the reference category, none of the Asian ethnic groups had an effect on income. Further, none of the interaction variables with Vietnamese were statistically significant as well. Therefore, it does not appear that Vietnamese identity has much effect on personal income for foreign-raised Asian men. There are a few surprising findings in the high skill occupation model. For instance, the results indicate that being a U.S. citizen had a negative effect. However, as we hypothesized in the previous tables, this may reflect that the most recent Asian immigrants are professionals with high skill jobs already, while “more established” foreign-raised Asians may contain smaller proportions of professionals. Another potentially surprising finding is that while being Chinese had the smallest effect on income (relative to Filipinos as the reference category), Chinese identity had the highest effect on being in a high skill occupation. Filipino ethnic identity had a modest negative effect vis-à-vis Vietnamese while Asian Indian and Korean had positive effects. Further, none of the Vietnamese interaction variables had an effect. Finally, in regard to SEI score, the results from Table 3.5 show that net of other factors, Chinese had the highest effect in relation to Vietnamese as the reference group on SEI score, with Filipinos having


87

Table 3.5 Factors Affecting Socioeconomic Assimilation Outcomes among Foreign-Raised Asian American Men

Intercept Years in the U.S. U.S. citizen Family size Married, spouse present LA, NY, or SF CMSA Not English proficient Less than high school College degree Homeowner Self-employed High skill occupation Professional services industry Enclave industry Asian Indian Chinese Filipino Korean Viet. x college Viet. x high skill occupation Viet. x prof. services indus. N R2 / Adjusted R2 χ2 / -2 Log Likelihood a b c

*

Socioeconomic Assimilation Outcome Personal High Skill Duncan’s Income Occupation SEI Score 9.61 -1.01 36.73 .02** -.01* .01** ** -.19 -.12** -.71** -.02** ** ** .19 .27 2.17** ** ** -.20 -1.54** .05 ** ** -.90 -7.74** -.16 ** ** -1.22 -8.46** -.14 ** ** 2.02 21.73** .27 ** ** .21 2.06** .30 ** ** -.37 5.72** .06 ** --.46 .79** 4.51** .08** -1.68** -7.91* -.21** .17** **

.34 -.85** -.40** --

12,983 .328 / .327 --

12,983 -6,475 / 10,963

p≤.05; **p≤.01 Population: at least 25 years of age and Employed Omitted category: Vietnamese

5.62** 6.50** -5.34** 5.52** 2.86* -5.31** 12,983 .467 / .466 --

88


a lower effect relative to Vietnamese. Interestingly, the interaction variables of Vietnamese and college degree and Vietnamese and working in a professional services industry had positive effects on SEI score (the only instances in which the Vietnamese interaction variables had a statistically significant effect for foreign-raised men), suggesting that the SEI attainment levels of Vietnamese men with college degrees or in professional services industries do not seem to be hampered by inequality or discrimination. The same sets of results in Table 3.6 for foreign-raised Asian American women produce relatively similar results and compare very favorably with men in regard to living in the LA/NY/SF CMSAs, lack of English proficiency, less than high school completion, having a high-skill occupation, and working in the garment, grocery/restaurant, and personal services industry. Notably, no Asian identity had a significant effect on income for foreign-raised Asian women relative to Vietnamese as the omitted category, although interestingly, the interaction variable of Vietnamese and high skill occupation had a negative effect. In regard to working in a high-skill occupation, the effects on various variables for foreign-raised Asian women are somewhat comparable to their male counterparts, although some of the variables (most notably college degree) appear to put foreign-raised Asian women at a slight disadvantage. Nonetheless, the results also show that the interaction variable of Vietnamese and professional services industry has a positive effect on working in a high skill occupation. Finally, in the SEI score model, the results indicate that foreignraised Asian women also have comparable returns for most variables, although as usual, there are some variables in which women seem to outperform men and vice versa. More importantly, the ethnic identity variables show that relative to Vietnamese as the reference category, only Filipinos have a negative effect while Asian Indians, Chinese, and Koreans have positive effects. However, the interaction variables of Vietnamese and college degree and Vietnamese and professional services industry have strong positive effects, suggesting that those Vietnamese who have attained some level of socioeconomic mobility


89

Table 3.6 Factors Affecting Socioeconomic Assimilation Outcomes among Foreign-Raised Asian American Women

Intercept Years in the U.S. U.S. citizen Family size Married, spouse present LA, NY, or SF CMSA Not English proficient Less than high school College degree Homeowner Self-employed High skill occupation Professional services industry Enclave industry Asian Indian Chinese Filipino Korean Viet. x college Viet. x high skill occupation Viet. x prof. services indus. N R2 / Adjusted R2 χ2 / -2 Log Likelihood a b c

*

Socioeconomic Assimilation Outcome Personal High Skill Duncan’s Income Occupation SEI Score 9.51 -1.41 36.58 .01** .08** ** ** -.18 .10 -.07** -.51** -.21** * .12 1.19** ** .89* .11 ** ** -.97 -7.18** -.14 ** ** -1.60 -9.56** -.11 ** ** 1.80 16.62** .20 ** .25 6.65** -.36** ** --.60 5.45** -1.72** -8.49* -.20**

.54

-.18*

11,487 .267 / .266 --

**

-.70** 11,487 -4,186 / 10,082


6.98** 9.12** -1.92** 1.92** 6.09* -6.70** 11,487 .407 / .406 --

90


do not seem to experience any meaningful SEI inequality while others who have lower socioeconomic attainment levels may still be vulnerable. Lastly, we turn our attention to U.S.-raised Asian men and women in Tables 3.7 and 3.8, respectively. Specifically, the results for U.S.raised men in the logged income model draw interesting comparisons to their foreign-raised counterparts. Specifically, U.S.raised Asian men seem to enjoy a slightly higher return on having a college degree but foreign-raised Asian men exhibit a slightly higher return on working in a high skill occupation. None of the ethnic identity variables (with Vietnamese as the reference category) nor any of the Vietnamese interaction variables have a significant effect. In fact, none of the ethnic identity or interaction variables had an effect for any of the three outcomes for U.S.-raised Asian men. Similar to the results in Table 3.4, age had a positive effect on income but negative effects for high skill occupation or SEI score, for both U.S.-raised men and women. The results for the high skill occupation category show that foreign- and U.S.-raised Asian men are quite comparable in terms of returns from most variables, after factoring in their intercepts. The third model on SEI score reveal that although U.S.- and foreign-raised Asian men continue to have fairly similar returns, U.S.-raised Asian men seem to have an initial socioeconomic advantage (as indicated by their higher intercept). As such, a smaller regression coefficient does not mean greater disadvantage across nativities -- only smaller advantages relative to others within one’s own nativity group. In other words, foreign-raised Asian men seem to gain slightly more from their returns, relative to their foreign-raised counterparts. The results for U.S.-raised Asian women in Table 3.8 also show interesting comparisons with both their U.S.-raised male and foreignraised female counterparts. Specifically, when it comes to personal income, U.S.-raised Asian women most notably outperform U.S.-raised Asian men when it comes to having a high skill occupation but lag behind them as it relates to college degree attainment. Comparing within genders, U.S.-raised Asian women exhibit similar returns relative to foreign-raised Asian women on college degree attainment but the latter experience a higher return on working in a high skill


91

Table 3.7 Factors Affecting Socioeconomic Assimilation Outcomes among U.S.-Raised Asian American Men

Intercept Age U.S.-born Family size Married, spouse present LA, NY, or SF CMSA Not English proficient Less than high school College degree Homeowner Self-employed High skill occupation Professional services industry Enclave industry

Asian Indian Chinese Filipino Korean Viet. x college Viet. x high skill occupation Viet. x prof. services indus. N R2 / Adjusted R2 χ2 / -2 Log Likelihood a b c

*

Socioeconomic Assimilation Outcome Personal High Skill Duncan’s Income Occupation SEI Score 9.63 -.85 47.23 .01** -.02** -.13** ** -1.46* -.27 ** * -.04 -.08 -.92** ** * .54 4.28** .31 ** .12 -7.63** -.32** * * -.72 -11.04** -.14 ** ** 1.78 21.16** .32 ** 1.62* .21 ** ** -.40 4.40** .14 ** --.32 .11** .76** 5.12** ** ** -1.50 -7.80** -.17

-.15*

--

3,208 .277 / .272 --

3,264 -1,098 / 3,357


--

3,264 .384 / .380 --

92


Table 3.8 Factors Affecting Socioeconomic Assimilation Outcomes among U.S.-Raised Asian American Women

Intercept Age U.S.-born Family size Married, spouse present LA, NY, or SF CMSA Not English proficient Less than high school College degree Homeowner Self-employed High skill occupation Professional services industry Enclave industry

Asian Indian Chinese Filipino Korean Viet. x college Viet. x high skill occupation Viet. x prof. services indus. N R2 / Adjusted R2 χ2 / -2 Log Likelihood a b c

*

Socioeconomic Assimilation Outcome Personal High Skill Duncan’s Income Occupation SEI Score 9.40 -1.23 53.30 .01** -.02** -.16** * * -.19 -.07 -.06* -.75** -.06** ** .10 1.62* ** 1.55* .20 -.21* .28** .22** .42** .10** -.13**

1.14

**

-.42** -.96**

-2.33** -9.64** 6.57** 6.36**

**

.25 .25** .18* .24*

5.85** 4.87*

--

2,824 .193 / .193 --

-10.43** 13.84**

2,887 -545 / 3,262


--

2,887 .285 / .280 --


93

occupation. In other words, there does not seem to be any clear cut pattern of advantage or disadvantage for U.S.-raised Asian women visà-vis their U.S.-raised male or foreign-raised female counterparts when it comes to factors affecting personal income. At the same time, the results from Table 3.8 show that all four Asian ethnicities have a positive effect on income relative to Vietnamese as the reference category, although the interaction variable of Vietnamese and college degree has a moderately strong positive effect. Regarding the high skill occupation model, U.S.-raised Asian women exhibit comparable returns from having a college degree vis-àvis U.S.-raised Asian men and foreign-raised Asian women. Finally, the SEI score model illustrates that U.S.-raised Asian women start off with an initial socioeconomic advantage compared to U.S.-raised Asian men and foreign-raised Asian women. As such, their return on SEI score from having a college degree is not as high as it is for the other two groups, which suggests that they exhibit slightly smaller advantages relative to their own reference group of other U.S.-raised Asian women. We also observe that Asian Indians, Chinese, and Koreans had a positive effect relative to Vietnamese as the reference category. Although more detailed analysis may be needed, the results from at least the personal income and SEI models of Table 3.8 may indicate that U.S.-raised Vietnamese women may be more at a disadvantage relative to their U.S.-raised Asian women contemporaries than other Vietnamese subgroups. Overall, it appears that U.S.-raised Asian women may not do significantly better or worse than U.S.-raised men but it is likely that despite slightly smaller regression coefficients, U.S.-raised Asian women enjoy a sizable advantage over foreign-raised Asian women when it comes to factors that have an effect on personal income, having a high skill occupation, and SEI score. Predicted Outcomes by Asian Group As demonstrated by scholars such as Alba, Logan, and Stults (2000), an effective way to illustrate the implications of inter-group regression models is to present predicted values of their socioeconomic outcomes -- in this case, income, high skill occupation, and SEI score. Tables 3.9 and 3.10 present such predicted values for foreign- and U.S.-raised groups, respectively, using regression results from Tables 3.3 and 3.4.

94


Whites

Asian Indians

Chinese

Filipinos

Koreans

Vietnamese

Table 3.9 Predicted Values of Socioeconomic Outcomes by Foreign-Raised Racial/Ethnic Group and SES Example

$8.4

$8.0 (.99)

$7.0 (.98)

$8.5 (1.00)

$8.3 (1.00)

$8.2 (1.00)

Middle SES

$14.4

$14.9 (1.00)

$14.8 (1.00)

$17.1 (1.02)

$15.9 (1.01)

$18.1 (1.02)

Affluent

$68.7

$63.8 (.99)

$58.6 (.99)

$50.2 (.97)

$43.1 (.96)

$50.8 (.97)

Personal Income Poor

High Skill Occupation Poor

.00

.01 (6.0)

.01 (7.0)

.00 (1.7)

.01 (5.4)

.00 (2.2)

Middle SES

.11

3.97 (35.5)

.22 (1.9)

.20 (1.7)

.12 (1.0)

.18 (1.6)

Affluent

3.05

21.18 (6.9)

3.09 (1.0)

2.25 (.7)

1.92 (.6)

6.67 (2.2)

Duncan’s SEI Score Poor

9.8

25.7 (2.6)

18.6 (1.9)

9.3 (.9)

19.2 (2.0)

11.2 (1.1)

Middle SES

43.4

50.9 (1.2)

52.8 (1.2)

39.1 (.9)

50.6 (1.2)

33.6 (.8)

Affluent

82.4

65.6 (.8)

79.8 (1.0)

70.8 (.9)

75.1 (.9)

79.9 (1.0)


95

Table 3.9 Predicted Values of Socioeconomic Outcomes by Foreign-Raised Racial/Ethnic Group and SES Example (continued) Population: At least 25 years of age and employed Ratio of predicted values to those for Whites shown in parentheses for Asian groups a Personal income in tens of thousands of dollars b High skill occupation represented as odds-ratios c Poor: 5 years in the U.S., not U.S. citizen, unmarried, outside LA, NY, or SF CMSA, not proficient in English, less than high school completion, renter, nonhigh skill occupation, employee, enclave-associated industry d Middle SES: 10 years in the U.S., U.S. citizen, married with spouse present, outside LA, NY, or SF CMSA, proficient in English, high school completion, no college degree, renter, non-high skill occupation, self-employed, nonenclave-associated industry, non professional industry e Affluent: 15 years in the U.S., U.S. citizen, married with spouse present, inside LA, NY, or SF CMSA, proficient in English, college degree, homeowner, high skill occupation, employee, professional

Hypothetical values that correspond to those of poor, middle, and affluent SES are also used to give a more detailed picture of the regression results from Tables 3.3 and 3.4. Looking at Table 3.9, the predicted incomes for each of the five Asian groups and their ratios to the predicted income of Whites show that for the poor, incomes are very similar. However, all five Asian groups of middle SES enjoy slight advantages in predicted income over Whites, with Vietnamese (somewhat surprisingly) having one of the largest predicted incomes. However, for the affluent, Whites reassert their advantages and have higher predicted values than all Asian groups. Predicted odds ratios for having a high skill occupation for foreignraised groups in Table 3.9 again show that among the poor and middle SES, all five Asian groups perform comparably to Whites and even outperform them at times. Among the affluent, Whites have higher predicted odds ratios than Filipinos and Koreans, but lower ones compared to Asian Indians and interestingly, Vietnamese. Finally, predicted SEI scores among the foreign-raised show that among the poor, four Asian groups (Filipinos being the exception) have higher predicted SEI scores than Whites. Among those with middle SES, Whites have higher predicted SEI scores than Filipinos and Vietnamese but lower scores compared to Asian Indians, Chinese, and Koreans.

96


Vietnamese

Koreans

Filipinos

Chinese

As. Indians

Whites

Table 3.10 Predicted Values of Socioeconomic Outcomes by U.S.-Raised Racial/Ethnic Group and SES Example

Personal Income Poor

$9.4

$7.4 (.79)

$10.7 (1.13)

$10.5 (1.11)

$7.2 (.76)

$8.2 (.87)

Middle SES

$14.2

$17.3 (1.22)

$21.3 (1.50)

$23.7 (1.67)

$22.5 (1.59)

$15.2 (1.07)

Affluent

$80.3

$64.5 (.80)

$70.6 (.88)

$63.7 (.79)

$68.3 (.85)

$58.3 (.73)

High Skill Occupation Poor

.01

.02 (1.1)

.03 (2.2)

.01 (.7)

.02 (1.7)

.03 (1.9)

Middle SES

.08

.21 (2.6)

.19 (2.3)

.12 (1.4)

.22 (2.7)

.00 (.4)

Affluent

4.23

2.35 (.6)

3.10 (.7)

2.08 (.5)

1.61 (.4)

1.46 (.3)

Duncan’s SEI Score Poor

26.0

42.4 (1.6)

21.2 (.8)

32.4 (1.2)

15.1 (.6)

17.9 (.7)

Middle SES

40.1

58.5 (1.5)

55.1 (1.4)

54.6 (1.4)

54.0 (1.3)

42.8 (1.1)

Affluent

83.9

64.7 (.8)

74.9 (.9)

73.2 (.9)

77.6 (.9)

72.3 (.9)


97

Table 3.10 Predicted Values of Socioeconomic Outcomes by U.S.-Raised Racial/Ethnic Group and SES Example (continued) Population: At least 25 years of age and employed Ratio of predicted values to those for Whites shown in parentheses for Asian groups a Personal income in tens of thousands of dollars b High skill occupation represented as odds-ratios c Poor: 5 years in the U.S., not U.S. citizen, unmarried, outside LA, NY, or SF CMSA, not proficient in English, less than high school completion, renter, nonhigh skill occupation, employee, enclave-associated industry d Middle SES: 10 years in the U.S., U.S. citizen, married with spouse present, outside LA, NY, or SF CMSA, proficient in English, high school completion, no college degree, renter, non-high skill occupation, self-employed, non-enclaveassociated industry, non professional industry e Affluent: 15 years in the U.S., U.S. citizen, married with spouse present, inside LA, NY, or SF CMSA, proficient in English, college degree, homeowner, high skill occupation, employee, professional industry

Among the affluent, Whites outperform all Asian groups, with Vietnamese and Chinese having the highest predicted scores among the Asians. The results from Table 3.9 seem to show that in most instances, poor Asians frequently have slightly higher predicted outcomes than poor Whites. At the middle SES level, there is more equality in predicted values. However, among the affluent, Whites pull away from Asians in most instances. At the same time, there are notable instances in which foreign-raised Vietnamese fare quite well relative to foreignraised Whites (i.e., middle SES income and high skill occupation -poor, middle, and affluent). These results once again suggest that while there are segments of the foreign-raised Vietnamese population who continue to struggle due to their refugee characteristics, many others seem to have overcome their initial disadvantages and now have socioeconomic outcomes very comparable to other Asian groups and to non-Hispanic Whites as well. Looking at predicted values for U.S.-raised racial/ethnic groups in Table 3.10, the pattern of White predicted outcomes vis-à-vis those for Asians across SES levels holds true. That is, U.S.-raised Asians frequently have higher predicted outcomes at the poor SES level (although there are more instances where Whites’ predicted outcomes are higher than among the foreign-raised) but at the affluent level, U.S.-

98


raised Whites consistently have higher predicted outcomes. An interesting pattern is that in all but one instance (high skill occupation for Vietnamese), all Asian groups had higher predicted outcomes than Whites among those with middle SES. This contrasts with the findings for the foreign-raised, where there was an even split among Whites and Asians on who had higher predicted outcomes in the middle SES level. In general, U.S.-raised Vietnamese fare relatively well compared to U.S.-raised Whites in terms of predicted income and SEI scores. However, as previously mentioned, predicted odds ratios for middle SES and affluent Vietnamese were significantly lower than those for Whites. This is in direct contrast to their foreign-raised counterparts where the opposite pattern is true -- Vietnamese have higher predicted odds ratios than Whites at all SES levels. This could be due to the younger age of U.S.-raised Vietnamese since many have not yet reached the age to compete for high skill positions. Nonetheless, the predicted values suggest that in most situations, Vietnamese Americans are capable of attaining the same level of socioeconomic outcomes as not only other Asian groups but compared to Whites as well. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS Among the many sets of results and comparisons in this chapter on socioeconomic assimilation among Asian Americans, we can highlight a few that illustrate notable differences between U.S.- and foreignraised Asians, men and women, and Vietnamese and the other Asian ethnic groups in the analyses. We first note that descriptive statistics seem to paint a relatively unflattering picture for foreign-raised Vietnamese Americans. Most likely due to their refugee status and the disadvantages that are associated with not being able to prepare for immigration to the U.S. or being too old to maximize their chances for success in the U.S. labor market, foreign-raised Vietnamese are at or near the bottom in relation to other Asian American groups and Whites in many socioeconomic attainment measures. Their initial disadvantage is at times evident in the regression analysis (i.e., when it comes to factors associated with working in a high skill occupation, foreign-raised Vietnamese start off with a clear initial disadvantage).


99

There are also instances when foreign-raised Vietnamese seem to derive lower returns for their socioeconomic characteristics, compared to other foreign-raised Asian groups. However, at other times, they hold their own vis-à-vis other groups and despite these disadvantages, foreign-raised Vietnamese seem to fare much better when it comes to factors associated with income and SEI score and in terms of predicted outcomes. In regression and predicted outcome analyses for both socioeconomic assimilation outcomes, the results indicate that while foreign-raised Vietnamese seem to suffer several disadvantages and inequalities relative to other Asian groups, the discrepancies may not be as large as we might have predicted from their refugee background, and even disappear entirely at times. Moreover, many of these disadvantages or inequalities do not seem to exist at all for U.S.-raised Vietnamese Americans. While they may trail the four other Asian groups in many descriptive measures of socioeconomic attainment (although not as severely as their foreignraised counterparts), U.S.-raised Vietnamese consistently derive comparable, if not more, advantageous returns for personal income, working in a high skill occupation, and SEI score, as revealed in regression and predicted outcome analyses. Further, regressions that combined all Asian groups into one model indicated that there were only a few instances in which other Asian ethnicities have a positive effect on the socioeconomic outcome with Vietnamese as the reference category and several instances in which interaction variables with Vietnamese had positive effects. We might speculate that while some segments of the foreign-raised Vietnamese community may not have been able to overcome all of their disadvantages in attaining socioeconomic assimilation, the resilience of the Vietnamese families, social structures, and the collective community have allowed many foreign-raised Vietnamese and much of the U.S.-raised Vietnamese to succeed in tangible ways. While there is still room for improvement, overall the results suggest that the Vietnamese population has done remarkably well to overcome its initial disadvantages toward attaining socioeconomic assimilation. As other scholars have pointed out, the ethic of selfsacrifice for the future success of the later generations, the strength of family ties and religious affiliation, and advantages associated with

100


ethnic enclaves and communities may have coalesced to not only help Vietnamese Americans adjust to life in the U.S. but to overcome the initial barriers and disadvantages against them to strive toward socioeconomic assimilation (Bankston and Zhou 1995; Caplan, Whitmore and Choy 1989; Light 1984; Portes and Rumbaut 1996). In the following chapters, we examine how these other community-level resources have played out and to what extent have their facilitated the structural assimilation of Vietnamese Americans. CONCLUSION This chapter used data from the 2000 Census to analyze and compare socioeconomic attainment levels and factors associated with personal income, working in a high skill occupation, and Duncan’s SEI score for five U.S.- and foreign-raised Asian American ethnic groups. The goals were, first to determine how Vietnamese Americans compare to other Asian Americans and Whites in terms of human capital characteristics and socioeconomic attainment and, second, to ascertain to what extent these disadvantages are amplified and exacerbated with each of the three socioeconomic outcomes at the center of this study. The results show that while Vietnamese Americans (particular the foreign-raised) exhibit several instances of disadvantage, many Vietnamese have done remarkably well to overcome these initial and continuing barriers against them and that many Vietnamese have achieved relative parity with other Asian American ethnic groups and non-Hispanic Whites as well. Although there still seem to be pockets of structural inequality operating against Vietnamese Americans, their overall socioeconomic assimilation patterns indicate reasons for optimism.

CHAPTER FOUR

Doing It Their Way: Entrepreneurship and Small Business Ownership As we move along the structural- to individual-level continuum of assimilation outcomes, the next measure that we will examine is the phenomenon of entrepreneurship, also known as self-employment. This chapter will examine the rates and motivations of entrepreneurship for the five Asian American ethnic groups in question. The contemporary dynamics and effects of immigrant entrepreneurship, particularly among Asians, have been the topic of considerable debate and research in recent decades. Scholars have compiled an impressive and ever-growing literature which analyzes such aspects as the motivations and structural factors that precipitate self-employment among immigrants (Aldrich and Waldinger 1990; Light 1984; Light and Rosenstein 1995; Zhou and Bankston 1995), the mechanisms utilized by immigrant small business owners to maximize their economic success (Bonacich and Modell 1980; Jiobu 1988; Portes and Manning 1986; Sanders and Nee 1996; Yoon 1997), and the effects of participation in ethnic enclaves by ethnic owners and employees (Portes and Zhou 1996; Sanders and Nee 1987; Wilson and Martin 1982; Zhou and Logan 1989). Nonetheless, scholars posit that in general, self-employment is a characteristic more common to immigrants who are not as structurally assimilated as U.S.-born racial/ethnic minorities (Aldrich and Waldinger 1990; Light and Rosenstein 1995; Min 1996; Park 1997; Portes 1995; Portes and Zhou 1999). The first purpose of this chapter is to test this assumption by comparing self-employment rates for U.S.and foreign-born Asian Americans. The second purpose is to determine the motivations for specific Asian American ethnic groups to engage in self-employment and to analyze how these different motivations relate to the more general patterns of socioeconomic and cultural assimilation in contemporary circumstances. Within this context, there has not been a study that comprehensively tests the major theories of self-employment, nor one that compares any such results 101

102


among the major Asian American ethnic groups. Therefore, using data from the Census 2000, this chapter will determine to what extent Vietnamese Americans are more or less likely to be self-employed compared to other Asian American ethnic groups and secondly, to what extent does self-employment represent a form of socioeconomic attainment and mobility versus marginalization and structural disadvantage for Vietnamese Americans and other Asian American groups. SOCIAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Since immigrants first arrived in the U.S., the practice of entrepreneurship (self-employment) has been a commonly used mechanism to achieve socioeconomic mobility, social status, and personal autonomy. Immigrant entrepreneurship has been an especially significant feature of the social and economic history of this country (Butler 1991; Light 1984; Steinmetz and Wright 1989). While immigrant entrepreneurship before World War II had been confined mainly to European immigrants (and to Chinese and Japanese but in a more constrained manner), in recent decades, entrepreneurship among immigrants from Asia, Cuba, and other non-European nations (Light and Rosenstein 1995; Portes and Rumbaut 1996) has become much more common and in many areas of the country, their ethnic enclaves and economies dominate over virtually all other ethnic-specific business activities. As previously detailed, as a direct result of increased nativist hostility and charges of unfair economic competition against Chinese immigrants in the latter half of the 1800s, restrictive legislation was passed at the local, state, and federal levels that progressively limited the subsequent entry of Asian immigrants as well as their rights to land ownership, employment opportunities, and American citizenship, perhaps best exemplified by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (Chan 1991; Okihiro 2001; Takaki 1998). Therefore, Asians had little choice but to retreat to their fledgling ethnic communities and many turned to self-employment as a means of economic survival. They concentrated what resources they did have and began selling goods and services

Entrepreneurship and Small Business Ownership

103

mainly out of their own homes or through small storefront stalls or stands on the street among their own ethnic group and then slowly, to non-Asians outside their ethnic communities. In this process, they opened restaurants, laundries, and gardening operations, in addition to the previously mentioned small merchant trading posts and farm stands (Bonacich and Modell 1980; Light 1972). As the first half of the twentieth century progressed, many of these Chinese and Japanese ethnic economies not only survived but also became somewhat selfsustaining as these enclaves continued to create many economic opportunities for their ethnic owners and workers. In addition, these enclaves built, reinforced, and perpetuated ethnic solidarity and facilitated a greater degree of social-psychological security as new immigrants and the first U.S.-born generations adjusted to life in the U.S. However, after the landmark Immigration Act of 1965 resulted in unprecedented numbers of non-European immigrants entering the U.S., roughly one-third of them coming from Asia (Bureau of the Census 2001; Heer 1996; Hirschman 1996), the fundamental demographics of Asian immigration and Asian American communities changed significantly. At the same time, the use of entrepreneurship as a tool of economic mobility and survival among Asian immigrants remains. Today, self-employment plays a significant role in the socioeconomic mobility process of many Asian immigrants. However, research indicates that these recent Asian immigrants, while sharing much in common, also possess very diverse characteristics. They are some of the most and some of the least educated, occupationally skilled, and proficient in English of all contemporary immigrants (Borjas 1999; Chiswick and Sullivan 1995; Heer 1996; Zhou 2001). Further, these Asian immigrants have arrived at different times since the mid-1960s and have encountered different social, political, and economic conditions upon their arrival (Kasarda 1995; Sassen 1991; Waldinger 1989; Waldinger 1996). Nonetheless, despite such differences, Asian Americans, and especially those who are immigrants, continue to engage in selfemployment at notable levels. Therefore, the question becomes, what factors contribute to the overrepresentation of Asian Americans in selfemployment when there are so many diverse characteristics and circumstances surrounding it? Further and more specifically, to what

104


extent is Asian American self-employment a valid measure of being less assimilated in American society? Finally, how do Vietnamese Americans compare to other Asian groups in terms of individual-, group-, and structural-level factors that affect the likelihood of being self-employed? EXPLANATORY CATEGORIES AND MEASURES Using data from the 2000 Census, this chapter will describe the socioeconomic and demographic differences between paid employees and the self-employed for all five major Asian ethnic groups included in the research (and for U.S.- and foreign-raised groups separately), analyze the factors associated with the likelihood of being selfemployed by type of self-employment, and finally, calculate predicted odds-ratios of being self-employed. In analyzing these questions of why Asians (and other racial/ethnic minorities) engage in selfemployment and to what extent self-employment is associated with being less assimilated, scholars in sociology and other academic disciplines have put forth several theoretical explanations (see Zhou 2004 for a comprehensive review). I contribute a new and unique synthesis that captures both the motivational and opportunity factors involved in becoming self-employed -- these influences are organized into four main conceptual categories: labor market discrimination, class resources, ethnic resources, and structural opportunities. In emphasizing a slightly different aspect of this complex and interrelated process, each explanation obviously has its strengths and weaknesses. Of course, there are instances of multiple causation or where one explanation can fit in more than one conceptual category. For example, the “ethnic enclave” model (see Wilson and Portes 1980), which states that the economic and demographic development of an ethnically and spatially distinct ethnic economy can lead to long-term self-employment among its participants, can conceivably fit within both the “ethnic resources” or “structural opportunities” categories as it emphasizes both the dynamics of ethnic solidarity and the selfcontained nature and advantages of economic opportunities within a geographically-concentrated ethnic economy. As such, this analysis


105

recognizes that the final categorization of the various perspectives on immigrant entrepreneurship is not immutable. Nonetheless, I am confident that the conceptual categories used here represent the prevailing sociological convention in regard to the general types of theoretical argument and emphasis on causal factors as they relate to immigrant entrepreneurship and that each is distinct enough to enable us to test them individually. Labor Market Disadvantage “Labor market disadvantage” theory posits that Asian immigrants are forced to enter self-employment as a means of economic survival because they lack English skills and/or employers in the mainstream labor market fail to recognize and validate their educational and occupational credentials attained in their home countries (Bates and Dunham 1993; Borjas 1986; Light 1984; Portes and Zhou 1996; Zhou and Logan 1989). In other words, as they are unable to gain access into stable and high-paying jobs in the primary labor market, they must either settle for unstable and low-paying menial jobs in the secondary labor market or become self-employed, where they can feel a certain degree of insulation from such mechanisms of employment discrimination. This explanation is demonstrated in regard to the Chinese and Japanese exclusion in the late 1800s and early 1900s (Okihiro 2001; Takaki 1998) and has been applied to the early development of Koreans (Light and Bonacich 1988; Min 1996). However, in recent times, many scholars suggest that Asian immigrants are choosing to enter self-employment, rather than being forced into it as a last resort (see Bates and Dunham 1992; Marger and Hoffman 1992; Sanders and Nee 1996; Tseng 1995; Yoon 1991; Yoon 1995). Further, data show that in general, recent Asian immigrants tend to be more proficient in English than their earlier cohorts (Chiswick and Sullivan 1995; Hirschman 1996), thereby calling into question one of the theory’s main tenets. Further, as Light (1984) and many other researchers point out, this labor market disadvantage explanation does not explain why some ethnic minority groups have significantly higher rates of entrepreneurship than others. Specifically, native-born Blacks have been more disadvantaged than native Whites, yet their rates of entrepreneurship have been consistently lower than

106


those of native-born Whites and significantly lower than those of Asians (Boyd 1991; Butler 1991; Light 1984; Uneke 1996). To test this conceptual category, this analysis examines two measures. First and most obviously, limited English proficiency (LEP) is a measure that, if positively correlated with self-employment, is direct support for labor market disadvantage. Limited English proficiency is defined as a response of either “Not at all” or “Not well” to the question on the Census long form on ability to speak English. Second, an interaction variable is created which represents those who have LEP and a college degree or higher. This interaction variable symbolizes the prototypical labor market disadvantage situation in which a highly-educated Asian immigrant is forced to resort to selfemployment because s/he has LEP. Of course, if more than one of these variables is positively correlated with being self-employed, than the level of support for the labor market disadvantage model grows accordingly. Ethnic Resources A second explanatory category contends that certain ethnic groups, particularly Asian immigrants, possess particular characteristics that facilitate their entry into entrepreneurship more easily than other ethnic groups. This explanatory category contains two interconnected but distinct areas of focus -- ethnic resources and cultural traits. In explicating the idea of cultural traits, many theorists, drawing on the ideas of Max Weber and his “Protestant Ethic” thesis, observe that Asian cultures emphasize a strong work ethic, frugal attitudes, a willingness to delay gratification, and a future-oriented outlook which stresses individual sacrifices for the good of later generations, all of which facilitate their entry into entrepreneurship (Bates 1994; Light and Rosenstein 1995; Min 1987; Sanders and Nee 1996). However, many argue that these ideals exist in virtually all ethnic groups. Because these cultural traits are inherently difficult to measure, especially using census data, however imprecise they may be, proxies are inevitably needed. This measure is represented by each of the Asian ancestral identity variables in the combined model (with Vietnamese excluded as


107

the reference category). In other words, if any of these Asian ethnic groups is found to be positively correlated with the probability of being self-employed, it would suggest that there is some residual quality or characteristic of that specific Asian ethnic group that is directly associated with being self-employed. The second component to this category is made up of ethnic resources, which are manifestations of ethnic solidarity among Asian groups and enable them to more effectively mobilize collective strategies and resources. As described by Light (1984:311), ethnic resources are “any and all features of the whole group which co-ethnic business owners can utilize in business or from which their business benefits.” These can take the form of rotating credit associations from which owners can borrow capital (Bates and Dunham 1993; Boyd 1990; Granovetter 1995; Light 1972; Portes and Manning 1986), utilizing family members, relatives, and co-ethnics as sources of cheap labor in order to minimize labor costs (Borjas 1986; Min 1987; Sanders and Nee 1996; Song 2000; Zhou 1992; Zhou and Bankston 1995), coethnic patronage (Portes and Zhou 1999; Zhou 1992), or vertical cooperation among co-ethnics within ethnic economies such as that between farmers, wholesalers, distributors, and retailers (Bonacich and Modell 1980; Jiobu 1988; Logan, Alba and Zhang 2002; Logan, Alba and McNulty 1994). While this analysis cannot include measures pertaining to the use of credit associations, vertical cooperation or patronage, being married with spouse present and number of workers in family are used to represent the practice of using one’s own family as a source of labor. Therefore, this theory would find support if being married with spouse present and/or number of workers in family are positively correlated with entrepreneurship. However, we should note that measuring the influence of spouses and family members can be somewhat difficult in that we cannot precisely know whether or not spouses or family members are directly involved in the self-employment endeavor. That is, similar to buying a house, if we knew for certain that becoming selfemployed was always a joint decision between spouses or among family members, we would randomly choose only one person from each household to include in the analysis. However, since we cannot determine that from Census data, and in light of the increase in professional-type entrepreneurial endeavors that presumably are less

108


likely to be dependent on spouses and family members (Light and Gold 2000; Portes, Haller and Guarnizo 2002; Portes and Zhou 1999) and the growing trend of Asian women opening their own businesses after previously working with their husbands (Kang 1997; Kang 2003), the best option is to include spouses and family members in the analysis and see to what extent and for which groups they are associated with being self-employed. Of course, such ethnic resources are more advantageously utilized within an ethnic enclave. In the case of Asian immigrants, the recent proliferation of ethnic communities and enclaves around the country certainly works to their advantage (Evans 1989; Logan, Alba and Zhang 2002; Logan, Alba and McNulty 1994; Min 1996; Zhou 1992). The social and economic development of Chinatowns in San Francisco and New York, Koreatowns in Los Angeles/Orange County and New York, Little Saigons in Orange County and San Jose and in Houston, and Little Taipeis in southern California, to name just a few, has been greatly facilitated by the influx of immigrants from Asia since the early 1970s. These enclaves provide all the ethnic ingredients necessary for Asian immigrant entrepreneurship to flourish, including a captive market, a continuous supply of cheap co-ethnic labor, and in many cases, a conduit of financial capital (Logan, Alba and McNulty 1994; Portes and Manning 1986; Waldinger 1986). To capture their effects, this model includes living in either the Los Angeles/Orange County, New York/Northeastern New Jersey, or San Francisco/San Jose CMSAs as a proxy for a greater likelihood of living near or participating in an Asian American ethnic community or enclave and its demographic environment in which ethnic resources of patronage, captive markets, and co-ethnic labor are easily accessible by the Asian immigrant entrepreneur. Class Resources The third major explanatory category emphasizes the importance of “class” resources. In this regard, class resources consist of having financial and human capital, including advanced educational credentials or previous entrepreneurial or managerial experience, which


109

Light (1984) terms “material class resources.” Several scholars have noted the increasing reliance on such material class resources in facilitating Asian immigrant entrepreneurship, either in the form of Asian entrepreneurs being more highly educated and/or with greater levels of previous entrepreneurial or managerial experience compared to previous years (Bates and Dunham 1993; Yoon 1995) or possessing large amounts of initial finance capital (Li 1977; Portes and Zhou 1999; Sanders and Nee 1996; Yoon 1997). In this analysis, these material class resources are represented by two measures. One is the LEP variable. That is, if LEP is negatively correlated with entrepreneurship (that is, if being proficient in English is positively correlated with entrepreneurship), then some form of support for this model likely exists. Other measures of class resources are represented by having a college degree or higher and logged income. Bates and Dunham (1993) point out that cross-sectional analyses do not permit a completely accurate interpretation of the income variable. That is, if income is positively correlated with being self-employed, it could either suggest that high personal income facilitated easier entry into entrepreneurship or that entrepreneurship over time resulted in higher income for the owner. While recognizing this aspect of the analysis, I nonetheless suggest that if high income, in combination with other variables, is found to be correlated with being self-employed, then the class resources model should receive a credible degree of at least tentative support, keeping in mind that the order of causality is still somewhat vague (that is, it is not completely clear whether income is always the result of entrepreneurship, a prerequisite to some forms of entrepreneurship, or some combination of both). Alternatively, class resources also can be manifested in “cultural” terms such as “bourgeois values, attitudes, knowledge, and skills transmitted intergenerationally in the course of primary socialization” (Light 1984). Other scholars have described these cultural class resources as “Americanized” methods and styles of conducting business and interacting with customers and the surrounding community (Goode 1994; Lee 2002a; Min 1996; Yoon 1997), which can be considered as tangible a form of cultural and behavioral assimilation (Gordon 1964). The analysis includes being a homeowner and a U.S. citizen as empirical examples of such manifestations of acculturation and “Americanization” and therefore, proxies for cultural

110


class resources. Being a homeowner and a naturalized citizen both represent an “investment” toward the goal of social integration on the part of immigrants, as they strive to socially, economically, and politically assimilate into mainstream American society. Some may argue that such forms of “assimilation” are merely strategies to maximize entrepreneurial success (i.e., becoming a citizen to qualify for loans, etc.). Nonetheless, even if true, becoming a U.S. citizen is not a casual undertaking as it usually involves some degree of emotional commitment to integrating into mainstream American society and for some groups, a commitment to forsake foreign citizenship. As such, I argue that both these measures are valid proxies for manifestation of cultural class resources. Structural Opportunities “Structural opportunities” represent the last major explanatory category of immigrant self-employment. The three main empirical threads of this category are the “middleman minority” thesis, the “ethnic enclave” model, and the “economic openings” perspective. The middleman minority perspective holds that the ruling elite, fearing economic losses, loss of status, or personal safety and security, is frequently unable or unwilling to deal directly with subordinate classes. Alternatively, native-born business owners can also abandon a particular economic market, niche, or geographic location to move on to more lucrative endeavors (i.e., wholesalers), thereby allowing immigrant entrepreneurs to fill that void. According to the middleman minority model, immigrants are prompted to take these intermediate socioeconomic positions which are frequently located in predominantly minority areas and where they act as a “buffer zone” between the elites and the masses, frequently incurring the wrath and resentment of these disadvantaged communities (Bonacich 1973; Cheng and Espiritu 1989; Lee 2002b; Min 1996; Ong, Park and Tong 1994; Quillian 1995; Yoon 1997). However, many have criticized this perspective for its theoretical and empirical shortcomings (see Waldinger 1986; Wong 1985). Further, this analysis and census data are not able to control for


111

history of ethnic succession and location of business and therefore, cannot directly test this model. Nonetheless, the second approach within this category is included. Specifically, the “ethnic enclave” approach argues that ethnic small businesses are likely to be more successful in ethnic enclaves that provide more than just ethnic resources, as previously discussed. As Wilson and Portes (1980) argue, ethnic enclaves also provide opportunities for vertical and horizontal cooperation which further maximizes the success of ethnic businesses. This infrastructural agglomeration is also exemplified by greater access to co-ethnic resources, something that does not exist outside of ethnic enclaves. Ultimately, this type of “monopoly sector” based on common ethnicity is a structural opportunity in addition to being an ethnic resource (Logan, Alba and Zhang 2002; Logan, Alba and McNulty 1994; Portes and Manning 1986; Wilson and Portes 1980; Zhou 1992). This analysis would include residing in the Los Angeles, New York, or San Francisco metropolitan areas as proxies for being located in or near an Asian ethnic enclave, which if found to be positively correlated with entrepreneurship, would lend support to the structural opportunities conceptual category. Although these variables were previously described to represent ethnic resources, their use as structural opportunities as well is appropriate because living in or close to an ethnic enclave can represent a form of both ethnic resources and structural opportunities as both conditions exist within the same context and can in fact overlap. In other words, this “ethnic enclave” model differs from the “ethnic resources” conceptual category because it includes not just co-ethnic patronage and co-ethnic labor but also the organizational and infrastructural synergies that arise from being located within an ethnic enclave. The last major approach within the structural opportunities framework is the “economic openings” perspective. Specifically, this model holds that immigrant entrepreneurs can enter economic sectors or markets that offer easy entry but also include high risks of failure (Hum 2002; Waldinger 1989). These industries frequently require relatively little start-up capital and operational overhead. However, they can also characterized by intense competition and may be particularly susceptible to consumer tastes and demand, as well as periodic fluctuations in the economy (Light and Rosenstein 1995;

112


Portes and Zhou 1999; Waldinger 1996). Waldinger (1996:254) identifies five such industries that are particularly characteristic of this phenomenon -- construction, garment and apparel manufacturing, grocery stores and restaurant, personal services (most relating to beauty), and retail (see Appendix A for a detailed listing of industries included in each category). At the same time, these industries frequently offer the opportunity for potential business owners to first work for another owner, “learn the topes” of operating the business, and then take over or buy the business for him/herself (Light and Gold 2000; Logan, Alba and Stults 2003; Nee, Sanders and Sernau 1994; Raijman and Tienda 2000; Raijman and Tienda 2004). In addition, sociologists point out that one of the characteristics that define a well-developed ethnic economy that is also integrated with the outside “mainstream” economy is the presence of several sectors of concentration (Logan, Alba and Zhang 2002; Logan, Alba and McNulty 1994). By implication, if one ethnic group is concentrated in just one economic sector, it may suggest that such a group depends heavily on ethnic resources located within an ethnic enclave and that this economic segregation would be a further sign of lower levels of structural assimilation. As such, if any of these industries are positively associated with being self-employed, we would tentatively conclude that they represent such “economic openings” which tend to attract Asian immigrant entrepreneurs. Using the Census Bureau’s IND (industry) variable, I further divide self-employment among Asian Americans between businesses that operate within one of two types of industries (both detailed in Appendix A). Because Asian American entrepreneurship has developed into a large-scale socioeconomic and sociocultural phenomenon in much of the U.S., especially major metropolitan areas, it makes sense to distinguish between the two major types of entrepreneurship and to determine to what extent Asian American entrepreneurs have broadened the scope of their economic activities, and perhaps by implication, the economic impact of their ethnic enclaves (Logan, Alba and Zhang 2002; Logan, Alba and McNulty 1994). The first are sectors that include activities relating to garment (manufacturing and distribution), grocery and restaurants, personal


113

services, and retail. These are industries that are generally associated with traditional Asian ethnic enclaves and are largely characterized by manual labor, low wages, long working hours, high rates of failure or ownership turnover, high employee turnover, providing little if any formal employee benefits or health insurance, and employing large numbers of poor, working class recent immigrants (Light and Roach 1997; Logan and Alba 1999; Nee, Sanders and Sernau 1994; Portes and Zhou 1996). The second type of self-employment includes businesses that provide professional services such as legal, financial, educational, technical, etc. (again see Appendix A for a detailed list). These proliferation of these professional services are emerging as markers of a mature and well-developed ethnic economy (Logan, Alba and Zhang 2002; Logan, Alba and McNulty 1994) and logically represent the “next step” along the path of socioeconomic mobility of Asian American entrepreneurship. In fact, professional-service selfemployment has taken on new dimensions as many Asian American entrepreneurs increasingly leverage their transnational linkages between Asia and the U.S. and the growth of the global high-skilled service economy. For example, focusing on Latin immigrant groups, Landolt et al. (1999) and Portes et al. (2002) describe different types of ethnic businesses that routinely transcend geographic boundaries to provide two-way exchanges of goods and services between Latin American countries and the U.S. While this form of entrepreneurship among Asian American has received less attention, some scholars note that it represents a natural offshoot of the transnational ties that many Asian American entrepreneurs possess (Light and Gold 2000; Logan, Alba and Zhang 2002). Taken together, these new forms of entrepreneurship challenge traditional interpretations of self-employment as a last resort strategy for economic survival in the face of employment discrimination. Instead, entrepreneurship is emerging as a favorable option even for those with the skills and networks associated with high levels of cultural assimilation who could gain high quality jobs as paid employees in the primary labor market. Within this context, descriptive and regression analyses should provide a more detailed picture of whether Asian Americans in general, and which Asian ethnic

114


groups in particular, have been transitioning from enclave-associated self-employment toward professional service entrepreneurship. RESULTS Descriptive Statistics Table 4.1 presents rates of self-employment by Asian ethnic group, nativity (U.S.-raised versus foreign-raised), type of self-employment (enclave-associated or professional services industries) and Census year. The results across Asian ethnicities and within each group through each decade illustrate several interesting patterns. Specifically, the results show that in 1980, foreign-raised Koreans had the highest rates of engaging in self-employment (a pattern that remains rather consistent through the years) with foreign-raised Vietnamese having the lowest rate, which is not surprising given that virtually all members of this group had only been in the U.S. for five years or less. More than half of their entrepreneurial activities were also concentrated in enclave-associated industries, and this was true for foreign-raised Chinese and Koreans as well. Conversely, foreign-raised Asian Indian and Filipino entrepreneurs had much higher concentration in professional services than in enclave industries. In 1990, foreign-born Koreans still had the highest rates (and actually experienced a dramatic 51% increase from 1980) with foreignraised Asian Indians now in second after passing foreign-raised Chinese (whose rates actually decline from 1980 to 2000). In this process, Asian Indians exhibited a higher proportion of selfemployment within enclave industries with a concomitant decline within professional services industries. Conversely, Chinese exhibited an increase in professional services self-employment from 1980 to 1990 but maintained the same proportion of enclave-associated entrepreneurship. However, the most notable development undoubtedly is the impressive 172% increase of the self-employment rate among foreign-raised Vietnamese from 3.6 to 9.8. This significant development is a testament to the rapid development of Vietnamese ethnic communities during the 1990s.


115

Asian Indian

Chinese

Filipino

Korean

Vietnamese

Table 4.1 Rates of Self-Employment by Asian Ethnic Group, Nativity, Type of Entrepreneurship, and Census Year

Foreign-Raised a 1980 Sample N Total Enclave Professional

6,925 10.1 35.6 49.0

12,050 12.4 66.1 21.0

11,578 4.4 21.4 60.1

5,596 18.6 60.6 16.3

2,937 3.6 58.5 15.1

1990 Sample N Total Enclave Professional

14,714 12.8 42.6 45.1

25,284 12.6 66.1 24.1

4,068 5.0 38.3 54.9

12,661 28.1 69.2 14.4

9,019 9.8 63.5 15.4


27,819 11.5* 41.2† 36.1†

34,632 11.2* 46.9† 26.1†

29,747 5.4* 27.6† 43.0†

14,825 27.8* 63.8† 12.5†

16,581 11.2* 62.2† 11.7†

U.S.-Raised a 1980 Sample N Total Enclave Professional

538 7.8 50.0 23.8

4,028 9.7 41.6 44.5

2,019 4.4 30.7 27.3

359 9.2 12.1 42.4

52 5.8 0.0 0.0


390 13.6 52.8 34.0

5,846 9.9 51.4 49.3

4,198 4.7 42.2 32.7

584 9.2 40.7 50.0

107 13.1 71.4 21.4

116


Chinese

Filipino

Korean

Vietnamese

U.S.-Raised a 2000 N Total Enclave Professional

Asian Indian

Table 4.1 Rates of Self-Employment by Asian Ethnic Group, Nativity, Type of Entrepreneurship, and Census Year (continued)

3,316 7.4* 31.0† 42.9†

10,866 9.8* 23.8† 52.3†

8,917 4.5* 24.6† 40.5†

3,710 9.0* 27.2† 42.2†

3,047 7.9* 41.3† 30.6†

Universe: all employed persons 25-64 years of age Difference between Foreign-Raised and U.S.-Raised is significant at p≤.05 † Difference between Enclave and Professional industries is significant at p≤.05 a For 1980 and 1990, the Census Bureau only recorded years of arrivals in fiveyear intervals, rather than discreet years, thereby preventing accurate differentiation of U.S.- versus foreign-raised. Therefore, for these census years, the categories are divided into foreign-born and U.S.-born. b Total: percentage of all in ethnic group who are self-employed c Enclave: percentage of all self-employed in one of the following industries: grocery/restaurant, garment, personal services, retail d Professional: percentage of all self-employed one of the following industries: financial, insurance, real estate, scientific, management, education, health *

By 2000, foreign-raised Koreans still had the highest rates but their overall self-employment had declined slightly from 1990. One interesting development from 1990 to 2000 was the gradual but noticeable decline in proportion of self-employment concentrated in enclave industries. Most likely reflecting a demographic maturation of the Asian American population and its concomitant expansion of ethnic communities away from urban downtowns to the suburbs, proportions of enclave-associated self-employment declined for Chinese, Filipino, and Koreans, while staying relatively stable for Asian Indians and Vietnamese. Overall, the results among foreign-raised Asians show that


117

from 1990 to 2000, Asian Indians, Chinese, and Koreans (the three Asian groups traditionally most involved in self-employment) saw their overall self-employment rates decline while Filipinos and Vietnamese saw their rates increase. Interpreting self-employment rates for some U.S.-raised Asian groups is a trickier proposition since the sample sizes in 1980 and 1990 for Asian Indians, Koreans, and particularly Vietnamese are relatively small. However, the larger sample sizes in 2000 allow us to see that compared to 1990, all five Asian groups saw their overall selfemployment rates decline. It is also worth noting that in 2000, U.S.raised Vietnamese have the highest concentration in enclave-associated self-employment sectors and the lowest concentration of professional services self-employment. In other comparisons within each group across Census years, U.S.raised Asian Indians saw a large decrease in their self-employment rate from 1980-1990, but then an equally notable decline from 1990-2000, somewhat similar to their foreign-raised counterparts. For both U.S.raised Filipinos and Chinese, their overall self-employment rates remained stable from 1980-2000. Among foreign-raised Chinese saw an appreciable decline in overall self-employment rates from 19902000 while foreign-raised Filipinos experienced small but consistent increases in each decade. As we mentioned, foreign-born Koreans started with the highest rates of all groups in 1980 and increased their rates into 1990 with a small decline into 2000. However, somewhat parallel to U.S.-raised Chinese, U.S.-raised Koreans saw their overall rates remain steady from 1980 to 2000. Again, only foreign-raised Vietnamese and Filipinos experienced increases in their selfemployment rates. Overall, the results from Table 4.1 show that rates of selfemployment in general seem to be gradually waning for almost all Asian ethnic groups. However, the most notable finding may be that in contrast to their foreign-raised counterparts, all Asian groups except Koreans saw their rates of professional service entrepreneurship increase from 1990 to 2000, perhaps reflecting the gradual evolution of both the population demographics of each group as they slowly shift from being predominantly foreign-raised to U.S.-raised, and also reflecting the general trends of self-employment in general moving toward an expansion into diversified business sectors.

118


We should note that in relative terms, the self-employment rates among Asian Americans are not as high as they are among U.S.-raised and foreign-raised Whites. Data not published here show that in 2000, Whites have higher self-employment rates than four of the Asian ethnic groups in the study, with the exception being foreign-raised Koreans. Does this automatically mean that Asian American self-employment is simply not a significant phenomenon? In other words, we cannot assume that all or even most instances of self-employment originate from socioeconomic necessity and are associated with disadvantage, with Whites being a prime example. Further, even if that were the case, the descriptive statistics clearly show that self-employment rates for most Asian groups are still relatively small. At the same time, I would argue that rather than simply comparing self-employment rates among racial/ethnic groups, the emphasis should be on identifying and analyzing the factors that are associated with being self-employed for each Asian ethnic group. By focusing on the factors that are unique to each group, we will discern whether or not self-employment represents a form of structural discrimination and inequality for each Asian ethnic group. To better highlight the nature of self-employment among different Asian American ethnic groups, Table 4.2 shows industries in which each Asian ethnic group are concentrated, by nativity and type of employment. As noted previously, the relatively small sample size of self-employment among U.S.-raised Asian Americans is evident here and therefore the most robust results are among the U.S.-raised who are paid employees and among the foreign-raised. Among U.S.-raised Asian Americans who are paid employees, three industries consistently show up in the top four for each Asian group -- medical hospitals, education (elementary/secondary or college), and computer systems design. This pattern suggests that U.S.-raised Asians in paid employment are likely to have relatively high levels of socioeconomic attainment, a finding that is confirmed in chapter three. The pattern among foreign-raised Asians who are paid employees is not significantly different either. Medical hospitals and education are present again, although not as consistently as for the U.S.-raised.


119

Table 4.2 Percentage of Representation in Industries of Employment by Asian Ethnic Group, Nativity, and Class of Worker

Asian Indians N: 24,630 / 3,189

Foreign-Raised Paid Employee Self-Employed Compu. Sys. Design - 10.5 Physicians’ Offices - 14.9 Medical Hospitals - 8.2 Travel Accomm. - 9.1 Education - Colleges - 5.0 Restaurants - 6.7 Mfg. - Electronics - 3.7 Grocery Stores - 5.2

Chinese N: 30,765 / 3,867

Restaurants - 12.3 Education - Colleges - 7.5 Mfg. - Apparel - 4.2 Hospitals - 3.9

Restaurants - 24.5 Construction - 4.9 Physicians’ Offices - 3.4 Real Estate - 2.8

Filipino N: 28,1850 /1,597

Medical Hospitals - 16.6 Nursing Facilities - 4.2 Travel Accomm. - 4.1 Mfg. - Electronics - 3.2

Physicians’ Offices - 11.0 Private Households - 6.2 Construction - 4.8 Child Care Services - 4.1

Korean N: 10,707 / 4,118

Restaurants - 7.7 Hospitals - 5.3 Education - Colleges - 5.0 Grocery Stores - 3.7 Dry Cleaning/Laundry - 3.7

Drycleaning/Laundry - 12.9 Restaurants - 11.1 Grocery Stores - 7.1 Construction - 6.0

Vietnamese N: 14,729 / 1,852

Mfg. Electronics - 9.1 Restaurants - 5.0 Nail Salons - 4.5 Mfg. Computer - 2.7

Nail Salons - 18.2 Beauty Salons - 11.2 Restaurants - 8.3 Construction - 4.5

Asian Indians N: 3,071 / 245

U.S.-Raised Paid Employee Self-Employed Medical Hospitals - 11.9 Construction - 7.8 Computer Sys. Design - 4.9 Grocery Stores - 5.7 Education - Colleges - 4.7 Restaurants - 5.3 Financial Investments - 3.0 Computer Sys. Design - 4.9 Physicians’ Offices - 3.0

120


Table 4.2 Percentage of Representation in Industries of Employment by Asian Ethnic Group, Nativity, and Class of Worker (continued) U.S.-Raised Paid Employee Chinese N: 9,805 / 1,061

Paid Employee

Medical Hospitals- 5.9 Elem./Sec. Schools - 5.0 Education - Colleges - 3.9 Restaurants - 3.7

Restaurants - 7.6 Real Estate - 7.4 Physicians’ Offices - 5.9 Legal Services - 4.5

Filipino N: 8,515 / 402

Medical Hospitals - 8.4 Elem./Sec.. Schools - 3.9 Construction - 2.9 Banking - 2.9

Construction - 8.5 Physicians’ Offices - 4.7 Child Care Services - 4.7 Real Estate - 4.0

Korean N: 3,376 / 334

Medical Hospitals - 6.8 Elem./Sec.. Schools - 5.2 Education - Colleges - 4.1 Financial Services - 3.5 Legal Services - 3.5

Construction - 8.1 Physicians’ Offices - 6.3 Dentists Offices - 4.8 Legal Services - 4.5

Vietnamese N: 2,805 / 242

Medical Hospitals - 5.6 Mfg. - Electronics - 5.3 Restaurants - 3.9 Computer Sys. Design - 3.2

Nail Salons - 10.3 Restaurants - 9.5 Beauty Salons - 8.7 Construction - 6.6

a b c

Universe: all employed persons 25-64 years of age All Asians of non-Hispanic origin Sample sizes for paid employee / self-employed by nativity are below each Asian ethnic group

In addition, working in restaurants shows up consistently among Chinese, Koreans, and Vietnamese. Differences among foreign-raised Asians however, are much more pronounced among the self-employed. Table 4.2 shows that each


121

Asian ethnic group has a unique set of sectors in which it is concentrated. For Asian Indians, the top sector -- physicians’ offices -is characteristic of high socioeconomic attainment and well above the norm in terms of occupational prestige in relation to their other Asian counterparts. Among Chinese and Koreans, the conventional service industries such as restaurants and dry cleaning/laundry predominate while for the relatively few Filipinos who are self-employed and similar to Asian Indians, physicians’ offices is the top sector. For Vietnamese, a significant proportion (in fact, the second highest proportion for any single industry among all Asian groups) of selfemployed foreign-raised are concentrated in the nails salon/personal care services industry, with beauty salons and restaurants in tow. In fact, it is noteworthy that Vietnamese are the only foreign-raised Asian group (paid employee or self-employed) not to have even one sector of concentration that can be considered white-collar or high-skilled. Along with their rising proportion of enclave-associated entrepreneurial activities (and corresponding declining proportion of professional services), the descriptive results begin to sketch out the characteristics of self-employed Vietnamese. Specifically, foreignraised Vietnamese experienced the largest self-employment rate increase from 1990 to 2000. In addition and in contrast to virtually all other Asian groups, both U.S.- and foreign-raised self-employed Vietnamese are solidly concentrated in enclave-associated industries and service sector “mom-and-pop” occupations, as opposed to Asian Indians, Chinese, Filipinos, and U.S.-raised Koreans, whose selfemployment characteristics are more focused on professional services and high skill occupations. In other words, it is becoming apparent that Vietnamese do not have the same self-employment characteristics compared to other Asian groups and that in fact, their characteristics seem to be associated with lower levels of socioeconomic attainment. Although we should still recall that only a small percentage of all Vietnamese workers are self-employed, the results increasingly show that those who are self-employed tend to have much lower levels of socioeconomic attainment.

122


Logistic Regression Results The goal now is to compare the four explanatory categories of selfemployment and see how they reflect the characteristics of each Asian ethnic group, using logistic regression analysis on factors that affect the likelihood of being self-employed. The results for foreign-raised Asian Americans are presented in Table 4.3. In testing the labor market discrimination model, the results show that limited English proficiency (LEP) increases the likelihood of being self-employed for Koreans (significant at the 0.15 level). In other words, the premise of or potentially suffering discrimination in the primary labor market due to their lack of English fluency is a strong influence on their decision to become self-employed. Similarly, Asian Indians who are collegeeducated but who are also LEP are also more likely to be selfemployed. For Whites and Chinese, LEP is negatively associated with being self-employed -- that is, members of those groups who are not fluent in English have very little likelihood of being self-employed, in direct contrast to Koreans. However, interaction effects show that Whites and Chinese who have LEP and a college degree are at higher risk of being self-employed. Therefore, these last two findings for Whites and Chinese seem to cancel each other out. The results for the cultural traits/ethnic resources model show that Koreans are the only Asian group in the table that exhibit positive effects on both being married with spouse present and family size. Therefore, it appears that cultural traits and ethnic resources remain relatively important in the self-employment experience of foreignraised Koreans. The results for the class resources model generally show that the self-employment experience of all five Asian groups seem to be strongly related to class resources and that it would be difficult to conclusively determine whether one group is more associated with class resources than the other. The same can also be said for the structural opportunities model, where virtually all industries conventionally associated with ethnic enclaves exhibit strong positive effects on the likelihood of being self-employed. Meanwhile, living in the Los Angeles, New York, or San Francisco CMSAs has positive


123

Whites

Asian Indians

Chinese

Filipinos

Koreans

Vietnamese

Table 4.3 Factors Affecting the Likelihood of Being Self-Employed by Foreign-Raised Racial/Ethnic Group

Intercept Male Years in the U.S.

-3.15 .68** .12**

-6.09 .52** .06**

-4.62 .52** .03**

-4.21 .43** .04**

-6.28 .63** .04**

-7.11 .36** .07**

Labor Market Disadv. Ltd. English proficiency College x. LEP

-4.57** .50**

Cultural / Ethnic Married, spo. present Family size Class Resources Logged personal income College degree High skill occupation Homeowner U.S. citizen Professional svcs ind.

†

1.17

.13**

.23† .06*

-.05* .13** -.34** .61** .11** 1.06**

.09† .20† -.37** .67**

-.24* .79** .38**

-.20†

.26† -.12**

.50** .11**

.30*

.20**

.20*

.63 -.32* 1.87**

-.59** .53** .22† .93**

-.36 .39**

.42

**

1.28**

-.49** .68** .28** 1.14**

.73* 2.34** 1.89** 2.74** 1.69**

2.23** .95** 1.52** 1.81** 1.51**

2.10** 1.17† 1.20** 2.22** 1.56** .35**

1.90** 1.76** 1.61** 1.60** 1.93** .25*

2.01** 1.84** 2.26** 3.08** 1.85**

LA, NY, or SF CMSA

1.50** 1.18** 1.02** 1.93** 1.08** .18**

χ2 (x100) -2 Log Likel’d (x1000)

2.1 18.1

3.6 3.2

6.0 4.4

3.7 2.2

3.6 .5

4.6 1.8

Struct. Opportunities Construction Garment. Grocery/Restaurant Personal Services Retail

a b

† p≤.15; * p≤.05; **p≤.01 Population: at least 25 years of age and Employed

**

1.71**

124


effects for Whites, All Asians collectively, Filipinos, and Koreans. In fact, it appears that based on the sizes and consistency of effects that the structural opportunities model may have the strongest association with being self-employed among all of the four conceptual categorized tested in Table 4.3. At the same time, we can still observe elements of labor market discrimination, cultural traits/ethnic resources, and class resources in effect in certain instances for specific groups. Regarding factors affecting the likelihood of being self-employed for U.S.-raised groups in Table 4.4, we should keep in mind that Table 4.1 showed us that U.S.-raised Asians had lower rates of being selfemployed than their foreign-raised counterparts. Combined with the smaller sample sizes of the U.S.-raised group vis-à-vis the foreignraised, we should exercise caution in interpreting results among U.S.raised Asians. With that in mind, in contrast to the results for the foreign-raised, there is not one instance in which either of the two measures representing labor market discrimination had a significant effect on any group, which was not surprising among the U.S.-raised. The size and frequency of effects for measures in the cultural traits/ethnic resources also seems to have diminished among the U.S.raised from the foreign-raised. In regard to the class resources model, the results show that compared to the foreign-raised in Table 4.3, the U.S.-raised do not show as many significant effects. Nonetheless, high skill occupation continues to have negative effects for many groups, with the Vietnamese exhibiting the largest negative effect. This finding stands in contrast to the expectation that as a measure of class resources, high skill occupation would have a positive effect on being self-employed. At the same time, for all groups except Asian Indians, professional services industry had a positive effect on the likelihood of being selfemployed. This particular finding does lend support to the class resources model and suggests that industry is more important in predicting self-employment than occupation. Interestingly, being U.S.born has negative effects for Asian Indians and Koreans, suggesting that the most recent generation of these groups are apparently turning away from self-employment in favor of paid employment.


125

Intercept Male Age

-2.94 .84** .04**

Labor Market Disadv. Ltd. English proficiency College x. LEP

-3.70† .51†

Cultural / Ethnic Married, spo. present Family size

.26** .02

Class Resources Logged personal income College degree High skill occupation Homeowner U.S.-born Professional svcs ind. Struct. Opportunities Construction Garment. Grocery/Restaurant Personal Services Retail

1.17**

LA, NY, or SF CMSA χ2 -2 Log Likel’d (x1000)

7,533 55,875

c

-5.57 .92*

-.23** .30** -.11** .40**

1.56** .43** .34** 2.26** 1.11** .24**

a

Vietnamese

Koreans

Filipinos

Chinese

Asian Indians

Whites

Table 4.4 Factors Affecting the Likelihood of Being Self-Employed by U.S.Raised Racial/Ethnic Group

-6.83 .66** .04**

-6.24

-9.62

-9.14

.03**

.07**

.10**

.43*

.50*

.53

.34 -.48**

.61* -.44

.34

-.72* .75 3.00** 2.86* 1.87** 1.79** 2.05** 72.2 322

1.76**

*

1.55 2.01** 1.84** 1.73** 182 1,151

-1.17*

1.50**

.49 -.75** 1.56**

1.39**

1.83** 2.30** 2.09** 1.82** 1.08†

2.31** 2.89** 2.05** 2.30** 1.76**

2.56** 2.80** 1.37† 3.54** 2.17**

76.0 666

114 440

67.7 219

† p≤.15; * p≤.05; **p≤.01 | b Population: at least 25 years of age and Employed 1 in 10 sample used for Whites

126


Finally, in looking at the results pertaining to the structural opportunities model, similar to the results for the foreign-raised, all of the industries listed continue to exhibit strong positive effects on being self-employed. As such, it appears once again that, parallel to the findings for the foreign-raised, measures associated with the structural opportunities model seem to offer the strongest and most consistent effects on the likelihood of being self-employed among all four conceptual categories among the U.S.-raised. Further, the strength of the labor market discrimination model seems to have declined significantly. In addition, measures associated with the cultural traits/ethnic resources and class resources also seem to have slightly declined in strength as well. Table 4.5 examines the role of ethnic group identity, gender, and type of business activity in influencing foreign-raised Asian entrepreneurship in more detail. When it comes to factors associated with working in enclave-related self-employment, we generally expect family size, married with spouse present, limited English proficiency, LEP and college degree, and LA, NY, or SF CMSA to have positive effects and for college degree and high skill occupation to have negative effects. The results for men in Table 4.5 generally confirm our initial expectations, although there are some notable differences between Asian men and women business owners. For instance, family size is not significant for men but actually has a slight (at the 0.15 level) negative effect for women (although being married with spouse present has a strong positive effect for women). Interestingly, living in the LA, NY, or SF CMSAs had solid negative effects on being self-employed for both Asian men and women, contrary to conventional expectations. Combined with its positive effects for professional services-related entrepreneurship (to be discussed in more detail shortly), we might speculate that Asian businesses in the LA, NY, or SF metro areas are now more likely to contain diverse sectors of economic activity, rather than just service sector “mom and pop” operations, perhaps a sign of economic maturation within such ethnic communities. The results for enclave-


127

Table 4.5 Factors Affecting the Likelihood of Being Self-Employed among Foreign-Raised Asian Americans, by Type of Self-Employment and Gender Men Intercept Years in the U.S. Limited English proficiency College x. LEP Less than high school Married, spouse present Family size Logged income College degree High skill occupation Homeowner U.S. citizen LA, NY, or SF CMSA Asian Indian Chinese Filipino Korean Viet. x LEP Viet. x College degree Viet. x high skill occupation N χ2 -2 Log Likelihood a b c

Enclave -3.05 .02**

Profess. -9.61 .06**

.72** .49**

Women Enclave Profess. -2.92 -4.85** .02** .04** † .24 -.82† * .54 .33** -.01†

-.12*

**

-.33** -2.37** .46** .17† -.47**

.31 1.06** .73** .64** .27**

.50** -1.84** 1.35**

.62† -.39**

-.57** -1.79** .43** .17† -.23*

-12,709 649.3 3,418

.40**

-.51** -.32† -1.23** .75** -.90†

12,709 1,130 4,833

1.01** .31† .67**

11,147 706.5 4,188

-.81† 1.47** 11,147 206.3 2,134

†

p≤.15; * p≤.05; **p≤.01 Population: at least 25 years of age and Employed Omitted category: Vietnamese

associated self-employment also show that foreign-raised Asian Indian and Korean men and Korean women exhibit positive effects while

128


Filipino men and women of Asian Indian, Chinese, and Filipino descent exhibit negative effects (all in relation to Vietnamese as the reference category). Regarding factors associated with professional services-related self-employment, we would expect years in the U.S., logged income, college degree, and high skill occupation to have positive effects and for the most part, this is confirmed by the results in Table 4.5. The primary differences between men and women when it comes to entrepreneurship in professional services industries are that logged income has a positive effect for men but is not significant for women and that college degree has a strong positive effect for men but a weak (significant at the 0.15 level) one for women. And as previously mentioned, LA, NY, or SF CMSA has a positive effect for both men and women when it comes to professional services entrepreneurship, again perhaps reflecting the sectoral diversification of Asian American economic activities in these large urban areas. In general, the contrasts between factors associated with enclaveand professional services-related self-employment among foreignraised Asian Americans are quite stark. There are only a few instances in which independent variables had similar effects on both types of entrepreneurship (most notably homeownership). This confirms that in analyzing self-employment, it is no longer sufficient to lump all forms of business ownership together. Rather, at least when it comes to Asian Americans (and most likely also with other racial/ethnic groups), we must now distinguish between older, more traditional, and presumably smaller businesses primarily associated with service sectors on the one hand and on the other, more contemporary, upscale, postindustrial operations that provide professional services and that reflect the high level of human capital among many Asian Americans. Similar to Table 4.5, Table 4.6 examines the role of gender, type of entrepreneurship, and ethnic identity in influencing self-employment, this time among U.S.-raised Asian Americans. Because of the smaller sample size and lower rates of self-employment among the U.S.-raised in general, there are fewer variables that have statistically significant effects. Nonetheless, the pattern for variables that do have significant


129

Table 4.6 Factors Affecting the Likelihood of Being Self-Employed among U.S.-Raised Asian Americans, by Type of Self-Employment and Gender Men Intercept Age Limited English proficiency College x. LEP Less than high school Married, spouse present Family size Logged income College degree High skill occupation Homeowner U.S.-born LA, NY, or SF CMSA Asian Indian Chinese Filipino Korean Viet. x LEP Viet. x College degree Viet. x high skill occupation N χ2 -2 Log Likelihood a b c

†

Enclave -3.40 .02†

Profess. -12.61 .05**

Women Enclave Profess. -.84 -8.03** .07** 2.13† .90*

.66*

**

-2.38

.61** .87** .50*

-2.13

**

.97** .51† -.44†

-.54

*

-1.05† -.95* -1.01*

-1.45**

-1.60†

3,208 125.4 666.8

3,208 158.1 904.6

p≤.15; * p≤.05; **p≤.01 Population: at least 25 years of age and Employed Omitted category: Vietnamese

2,824 82.2 544.1

2,824 64.0 642.6

130


Table 4.7 Predicted Probabilities of Asian American Self-Employment, by Type of Self-Employment, Nativity, and SES Example Men Enclave

Professional

Women Enclave

Professional

Foreign-Raised Poor

.040

.001

.056

.002

Middle SES

.041

.005

.071

.008

Affluent

.005

.078

.012

.067

Poor

.021

.000

.181

.000

Middle SES

.028

.006

.059

.007

Affluent

.002

.065

.006

.054

U.S.-Raised

Population: At least 25 years of age and employed Ratio of predicted values to those for Whites shown in parentheses for Asian groups a Poor (U.S.-raised): 25 years old, 1.5 generation, unmarried, $15,000 income, not proficient in English, less than high school completion, renter, non-high skill occupation, inside LA, NY, or SF CMSA; (Foreign-raised): 5 years in the U.S., not U.S. citizen, unmarried, $15,000 income, not proficient in English, less than high school completion, renter, non-high skill occupation, outside LA, NY, or SF CMSA b Middle SES (U.S.-raised): 30 years old, U.S.-born, married spouse present, $30,000 income, proficient in English, high school completion, no college degree, renter, non-high skill occupation, inside LA, NY, or SF CMSA; (Foreign-raised): 10 years in the U.S., U.S. citizen, married with spouse present, $30,000 income, proficient in English, high school completion, no college degree, renter, non-high skill occupation, inside LA, NY, or SF CMSA c Affluent (U.S.-raised): 35 years old, U.S.-born, married spouse present, $50,000 income, proficient in English, college degree, homeowner, high skill occupation, inside LA, NY, or SF CMSA; (Foreign-raised): 15 years in the U.S., U.S. citizen, married with spouse present, $50,000 income, proficient in English, college degree, homeowner, high skill occupation, inside LA, NY, or SF CMSA


131

effects is the same as that for foreign-raised Asian Americans. That is, college degree is positively associated with professional services entrepreneurship for both men and women. Further, high skill occupation is negatively associated with enclave self-employment and positively associated with that for professional services for both men and women. Finally, Filipinos of both genders, Asian Indian women, and Chinese women have negative effects on enclave self-employment relative to Vietnamese as the reference category. This particular finding presumably reflects the disproportionate concentration of Vietnamese in personal services industries (as shown in Table 4.2). Finally, to help us translate the regression results from Tables 4.5 and 4.6 into hypothetical examples, Table 4.7 presents predicted probabilities of Asian American self-employment by type, nativity, and SES example. In this case, and similar to examples used in the previous chapter on socioeconomic assimilation, hypothetical examples of Asians with poor, middle, and affluent SES characteristics are used to illustrate regression results. All of the predicted probabilities in Table 4.7 are rather small (below 0.20) and this is not surprising considering that overall, only a small proportion of the Asian population is engaged in self-employment and that for many Asian groups, this proportion is declining each decade. Nonetheless, the predicated values illustrate some interesting patterns. For example, they confirm that poor and middle SES Asians of both genders are much more likely to be engaged in enclaveassociated business ownership than affluent Asians. Instead, the predicted probabilities clearly show that affluent Asians, foreign- and U.S.-raised and of both genders, are much more likely to be involved in professional services entrepreneurship than poor or middle SES Asian Americans. One notable finding is that among both genders, types of self-employment, nativity status, and SES examples, poor U.S.-raised women have the highest probability of being self-employed in an enclave-associated business at 18.1%. There is no obvious explanation for this and we might speculate that a portion of poor Asian women may still experience labor market discrimination and therefore have little choice but to become self-employed in enclave-associated sectors, although this hypothesis seems more applicable to foreign- rather than U.S.-raised women.

132


DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS The fundamental question posed earlier was to what degree is selfemployment indicative of being less assimilated for Asian Americans. The results from Tables 4.1 indicate that in virtually all years and for all Asian groups, foreign-raised Asians are much more likely to be selfemployed than U.S.-raised Asians. By itself, this supports the claim that self-employment represents a lower degree of assimilation since being raised in the U.S. almost inevitably involves a greater degree of assimilation into American society. However, the details of this assimilation process among U.S.-raised Asians across each decade are not as clear. For all five U.S.-raised Asians groups and three of the five foreign-raised groups. successive decades have brought lower rates of being self-employed. At the same time, the contemporary nature of Asian American communities and ethnic economies require us to disaggregate selfemployment even further. On the one hand there are businesses that are traditionally associated with ethnic enclaves and are primarily located in service industries on the one hand. On the other hand, we have the emergence of self-employment among Asians (i.e., selfemployed doctors, lawyers, and others in high skill occupations) that is primarily focused in professional services and that presumably is more associated with higher levels of assimilation. In this context, we should note that while U.S.-raised Asian Americans are less and less likely to become self-employed, those who do are increasingly locating themselves in such professional service industries compared to 1990. In fact, research is beginning to show that the professional type of self-employment is becoming more common in recent years (Light and Gold 2000; Portes, Haller and Guarnizo 2002). The results from descriptive, regression, and predicted analyses all confirm that selfemployed Asian Indians, Chinese, and Filipinos are much more likely to be involved in professional service entrepreneurship than Koreans and Vietnamese. In addition, these analyses also confirm that Asians with poor and middle SES characteristics are much more likely to be involved in enclave-associated self-employment while conversely,


133

affluent Asians are much more likely to be involved with professional services entrepreneurship. The question then becomes, do the self-employment characteristics of some Asian ethnic groups reflect any forms of disadvantage or discrimination? The regression results generally show that in terms of factors associated with being self-employed, neither foreign- or U.S.raised Vietnamese suffer from labor market discrimination. In fact, the regression results indicate that Vietnamese are quite similar to other Asian groups when it comes to translating their human and social capital into self-employment. In addition, there are no instances in which interaction variables involving Vietnamese conclusively show that they are experiencing any significant disadvantage. Nonetheless, the results also suggest that Vietnamese self-employment, among both the foreign- and U.S.-raised, continue to be predominantly concentrated in enclave-associated service sectors such as grocery/restaurant and in particular, personal services. Taken together, while we cannot definitely conclude that the characteristics of self-employment associated with Vietnamese prove that they are less structurally assimilated than other Asian American ethnic groups, the convergence of separate pieces of descriptive and multivariate evidence suggests that this is a possibility. These results consistently show that many Vietnamese who are self-employed tend to have less prestigious and lower-paying working-class occupations, in contrast to most other Asian groups (and Whites) who are much more likely to be in professional-type entrepreneurial endeavors. This would certainly reflect how, as refugees who did not have the time or resources to prepare for their immigration to the U.S., many Vietnamese were likely to have experienced difficulties translating their educational and occupational background into meaningful employment in the mainstream labor market and therefore resorted to being self-employed. Further, it may also be possible that even as their ethnic community developed into a relatively vibrant enclave economy, characterized by some degree of sectoral diversification, the benefits of operating businesses that offered easy entry but large risks of failure and somewhat limited returns but were sheltered within the confines of a secluded enclave, away from direct competition from the outside economy, proved too attractive to many Vietnamese, even among their 1.5 and second generation.

134


Nonetheless, we should also recognize that ultimately, Vietnamese do not have extraordinarily high rates of self-employment. In fact, their rates represent only 7.9% and 11.2% of their own employed U.S.-raised and foreign-raised adult population, respectively. These rates are comparable to Asian Indians and Chinese, and in fact, are significantly lower than that for Whites and Koreans. Therefore, even if selfemployment is associated with lower socioeconomic attainment levels and an overall lower degree of structural assimilation for Vietnamese Americans compared to other Asian American groups, we need to consider their situation in the larger context of employment and socioeconomic mobility among the entire Vietnamese population. In doing so, as Chapter Three illustrated, most Vietnamese have done remarkably well to overcome the initial disadvantages they faced as refugees and have achieved notable socioeconomic gains. CONCLUSION This chapter used Census data from 2000 (with supporting data from 1980 and 1990) to analyze factors associated with being self-employed for U.S.- and foreign-raised Asian American groups to determine to what extent entrepreneurship is associated with structural assimilation. The results indicate that entrepreneurship is much more common among foreign-raised Asians than among their U.S.-raised counterparts but that there are noteworthy differences among the different Asian ethnic groups as to the specific factors that are associated with being self-employment. Specifically, Asian Indians, Chinese, and Filipinos (both foreign- and U.S.-raised) who are self-employed are much more likely to be in professional services entrepreneurship compared to Koreans and Vietnamese, who are much more concentrated in traditionally enclave-associated service industries. Taken together, the data suggest that those Vietnamese who are self-employed seem to have a slightly lower degree of structural assimilation compared to other self-employed Asians. At the same time, we should recall that self-employment represents a relatively small portion of the overall socioeconomic picture for Vietnamese Americans and that as other chapters have shown, Vietnamese have


135

made notable gains in other aspects of socioeconomic attainment and overall structural assimilation. It remains to be seen how selfemployment among Vietnamese Americans evolves in this next decade and to what extent they continue to engage in self-employment as a form of economic convenience or if the various Little Saigons around the country begin to develop into fully diversified ethnic economies that become more integrated with the outside economy and extend their range of occupations to include those with more high skill (and presumably more prestige and lucrative outcomes).


CHAPTER FIVE

Race and Place: Residential Segregation and Quality of Neighborhoods The next outcome of structural assimilation that this research analyzes is residential assimilation and specifically, the differences between Vietnamese Americans and other Asian American ethnic groups in terms of residential segregation from Whites and the quality of neighborhoods. As part of the continuum of structural assimilation that encompasses cultural and interpersonal measures such as intermarriage, as well as structural-level outcomes that represent socioeconomic attainment, residential segregation presents us with an opportunity to measure the extent to which different Asian ethnic groups are in physical proximity to Whites, who represent the integration into mainstream American society. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF RESIDENTIAL ASSIMILATION What residential segregation does represent to most sociologists, however, is a significant marker of racial/ethnic incorporation. Spatial assimilation generally takes on one of two distinct but interrelated forms. One is residential integration. The sociological premise is that when attempting to reduce social distance (cultural and physical), a situation where different ethnic groups have consistent contact and mixture with each other in their places of residences is desirable. In particular, one of those ethnic groups should be Whites, since they constitute the majority population and historically have been the de facto dominant group. Residential integration has always been assumed to be one of the natural outcomes of assimilation, following Park (1928) and Gordon’s (1964) typologies of intergroup contact. But residential integration also has several concrete socioeconomic ramifications for minority and immigrant groups. The dynamics of spatial segregation took shape as urban centers became increasingly industrialized, leading to greater levels of class segmentation. In turn, this combined with institutional discriminatory 137

138


mechanisms within political, financial, and social structures to reinforce, perpetuate, and exacerbate residential segregation. As industrialization began around the turn of the century, poor (and frequently) immigrant workers began clustering close to their jobs in so-called transition zones just outside of central business districts, and which were being abandoned by middle class residents in favor of more spacious housing around the city’s outer zones. These early (although relatively mild) forms of class segmentation became more common first through segmented labor markets that thrived on exacerbating racial/ethnic tensions and second, through chain migration (from abroad and internally as millions of Blacks migrated north from the south), existing social networks, and ethnic communities tied to particular areas of the city (Blauner 1972; Bonacich 1972; Lieberson 1980). Nonetheless, as Massey (1985) and Massey and Denton (1993) convincingly argue, the true destructive nature of residential segregation only became evident through the discrimination perpetrated by social institutions such as the Federal Housing Administration, the Home Owner’s Loan Act, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the real estate industry, and banks and other financial institutions. These structural mechanisms included a pervasive culture of racial prejudice among sellers, agents, and lenders within the real estate industry, zoning laws, restrictive covenants, and perhaps most infamously, redlining in which federal loan guarantees to mortgage lenders were directed away from minority areas toward virtually allWhite suburbs and where banks and other lending institutions refused to offer loans to residents in certain areas of the city that contained large minority populations. More recently, as the industrial basis for spatial segregation has become less important and as suburban commuting has become more common, ethnic neighborhoods have become institutionalized and continue to draw Blacks (and to a lesser extent new immigrants) into segregated areas. Meanwhile, mechanisms of housing discrimination continue to operate to prevent Blacks and other significantly disadvantaged minority members who want to move out of such segregated areas from doing so. These factors combine therefore to

Residential Segregation and Quality of Neighborhoods

139

reinforce and perpetuate the disadvantages associated with segregation. These mechanisms frequently produce a “dual housing market” that may track Whites into amenity-rich neighborhoods while many times confining Blacks (regardless of level of affluence) into lower-quality areas (Galster 1988; Yinger 1987). Other tactics of segregation have also included ‘improvement associations’ or ‘urban renewal’ programs that effectively move minorities away from commercially- or residentially-attractive areas and concentrate them into less appealing areas, and ‘blockbusting’ as neighborhoods quickly turned over in racial composition, thereby becoming resegregated. As several compelling studies have shown, being residentially segregated can have disastrous consequences on the life chances of those who are segregated in the form of decreased access to meaningful employment opportunities, quality education, health care and social services, as well as increased exposure to crime, violence, unsanitary living conditions, and ‘oppositional’ behaviors among the marginalized and alienated (Kozol 1992; Massey and Denton 1993; Wilson 1987; Wilson 1996). These and other scholars convincingly argue that residential segregation by itself has significant effects on concentrating poverty, reinforcing inequality, and perpetuating ethnic stratification and thereby can summarily preclude any meaningful integration into mainstream society and institutions. The other side of spatial assimilation, closely associated with residential integration, is suburban attainment. Scholars such as Alba, Logan, and their collaborators (Alba, Logan and Stults 2000; Alba and Logan 1991; Alba et al. 1999; Logan and Alba 1993; Logan, Alba and Leung 1996; Logan et al. 1996) and Massey and Denton (1993) have described that suburban attainment can be considered as a strong indication of assimilation, as it generally involves leaving behind traditional ethnic communities and networks to develop new social ties to a more diverse set of ethnic neighbors -- in essence, to integrate into mainstream American society. Similar to the dynamics of residential segregation, researchers also note that suburbanization also tends to bring with it increased access to better quality homes, education, employment opportunities, social and health services, and less crime (Logan and Molotch 1987; Massey 1990; Massey 2001; Massey and Denton 1993). At the same time, these scholars also point to income as a primary determinant of quality of neighborhood for Asian

140


Americans and light-skinned Latinos, similar to the patterns associated with Whites (Alba, Logan and Stults 2000; Alba et al. 1999). Nevertheless, the experiences of many recent immigrants have challenged the traditional “spatial assimilation” model (see Massey 1985) and many of the conventional considerations relating to the benefits of residential integration and suburbanization and how these processes relate to assimilation. Specifically, after the passage of the Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965, a new wave of highly educated and professionally-skilled immigrants, in particular from Asian countries, began arriving in American cities. Many followed the traditional settlement patterns of living within or close to well established ethnic communities located in central cities. However, many (particularly immigrants with professional backgrounds) chose to bypass such ethnic enclaves altogether and instead, were able to parlay their higher levels of human and financial capital to move directly into suburbs without the intermediary step of first residing in ethnic enclaves (Fong and Shibuya 2004; Logan, Stults and Farley 2004; Portes and Rumbaut 1996; Portes and Zhou 1993). In fact, Alba, Logan, and Stults (2000:616) note that while 1990 data still generally support the association of residence in predominantly White areas with socioeconomic affluence, compared with 1980 data, the pairing of the two has become somewhat more tenuous and that this development appears to have weakened one of the fundamental tenets of the traditional spatial assimilation theory (Logan, Alba and Zhang 2002). This rapid economic mobility and suburban attainment combined with efforts to retain ethnic immigrant resources stand in contrast to the traditional notion of assimilation being a regimented course of action in which immigrants proceed in an orderly manner through each step on their way to eventual socioeconomic incorporation into mainstream American society. Instead, these new immigrants have shown that suburbanization can be achieved from the outset, owing to their professional backgrounds and financial resources that they brought over from their countries of origin. Sociological observation and ethnographic studies have further illustrated how this recent demographic phenomenon has created new suburban ethnic enclaves as many new immigrants have applied the traditional settlement patterns


141

to their new suburban residences (Danico 2004; Horton 1995; Saito 1998; White, Fong and Cai 2003). In the process, this emerging demographic phenomenon, focused predominantly around Asian Americans, has called into question the fundamental notion that residential segregation is necessarily disadvantageous and that suburbanization is inextricably linked to greater racial integration. Since it is more difficult for us to equate residential segregation with disadvantage, a better way to measure residential inequality may be to look more closely at the quality of housing and the surrounding residential area. Within this context, several research studies point out that housing values are an overlooked but direct (and for many Americans, the only) measure of wealth (Gans 1988; Horton 1992; Horton and Thomas 1998; Oliver and Shapiro 1995), as well as a marker of socioeconomic attainment and residential assimilation. In previous analyses, Horton (1992) and Horton and Thomas (1998) found that Blacks had housing values significantly lower than those of Whites, despite controls for socioeconomic, household structure, and geographic characteristics, although this discrepancy and apparent discrimination showed signs of waning from 1970 through 1990. Unfortunately there does not seem to be much research that analyzes housing values for Asian American ethnic groups, but we might assume that the dynamics of housing values are complicated by notable differences among and within Asian ethnic groups, particularly in terms of nativity and immigration context. These structural changes and the evolution of the immigrant stream again call for a more complete examination of the contemporary dynamics of assimilation and intergroup contact and should exhort us to carefully consider the unique differences among ethnic groups. THE DYNAMICS OF ASIAN AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL ASSIMILATION Asian Americans have traditionally been the most urbanized of all the major racial/ethnic groups (Harrison and Bennett 1995; Sandefur et al. 2001). This is due in large part to the historical dynamics of Asian ethnic enclaves and communities that grew out of persistent institutional discrimination in the late 1800s and early 1900s. As these urban concentrations grew in major seaports and points of arrival such

142


as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York, they provided new Asian immigrants with social-psychological and material support as they adjusted to life in the U.S. These days, precipitated by the 1965 Immigration Act, continuing streams of immigration and the resultant settlement of new arrivals into existing ethnic communities reinforce and perpetuate the urban nature of Asian American communities (Barringer, Gardner and Levin 1995; Chan 1991). At the same time, Barringer, et al. (1995) note that U.S.-born Asian Americans are actually more concentrated in metropolitan areas than are immigrants. Research into the dimensions of segregation among Asians also reveal that similar to Hispanics/Latinos, levels of residential segregation measured by dissimilarity to Whites among Asians is much lower compared to that among Blacks (Frey and Farley 1996; Iceland 2004; Logan et al. 1996; Logan, Stults and Farley 2004; Massey and Denton 1987; Massey and Denton 1993; Massey and Fisher 1999; Wilkes and Iceland 2004). In many ways, this reflects the position of Asian Americans as the “model” minority who parlay a strong work ethic, high levels of education, and a greater tolerance for racial inequality and structural discrimination into greater acceptance among Whites and socioeconomic attainment and mobility levels that match or in some instances surpass that of Whites (Cheng and Yang 1996; Fong 1998; Woo 2000). Scholars also report that Asian American segregation from Whites generally declines with increasing socioeconomic status, across cities and suburbs and across geographic regions (Alba, Logan and Stults 2000; Charles 2003; Langberg and Farley 1985; Massey and Denton 1987; Massey and Fisher 1999). Nonetheless, in recent decades, socio-demographic shifts in the Asian American population have transformed the fundamental characteristics of residential patterns. Specifically, research generally finds that traditional Asian enclaves in central cities have remained stable and many have even flourished due to the influx of Asian immigrants since the 1965 Immigration Act. Also, more Asian Americans are moving away from central cities and into suburbs (White, Biddlecom and Guo 1993). Within the last two decades, suburban Asian ethnic enclaves have developed in many metropolitan areas around the country to accommodate both affluent U.S.- and


143

foreign-born Asian Americans alike (Alba, Logan and Stults 2000; Alba et al. 1999; Chung 1995; Danico 2004; Logan, Alba and Zhang 2002; White, Fong and Cai 2003). That is, through social networks and achieving a critical mass of ethnic migration, several Asian ethnic groups have developed ethnic communities (and in fact, have become majority populations in many suburban towns) that contain many of the same characteristics of their more traditional center city counterparts but are instead located in the suburbs that include several social amenities that suburban residence affords them. The first ones that gained national prominence were located in northeastern Los Angeles county, including Monterey Park, San Marino, and Alhambra (Danico 2004; Fong and Shibuya 2004; Horton 1995; Saito 1998; White, Fong and Cai 2003). More recently, this phenomenon has spread to include many cities in and around areas such as northern California and New York/northern New Jersey. As these new suburban Asian enclaves have developed, they have introduced new socio-cultural, economic, and political dynamics into the process of Asian American assimilation. Using Monterey Park as an example, Horton (1995) and Saito (1998) describe how the rapid inmigration of Asian Americans has disrupted traditional patterns of life for many established Whites residents in these suburbs. As more Asians become permanent residents and as new Asian businesses have flourished, many long-time White residents begin to feel that ‘their’ city has been quietly ‘taken over’ by the new arrivals who bring with them their own languages, businesses, social networks, norms, customs, and traditions. In an apparent role-reversal, many of these White residents complain that they do not feel welcome in or an integrated member of the city. With this in mind, the question becomes whether residential integration is necessarily or directly linked with affluence and quality of housing environment. A second question is to what degree integration and affluence are linked for each of Asian groups in the analysis. Up to this point, much of this research on suburban Asian ethnic enclaves has focused on Chinese- and Taiwanese Americans, as they have been at the forefront on this socio-demographic shift. As such, less attention has been paid to other Asian ethnic groups and in particular, to Vietnamese Americans (although several studies include Vietnamese in the analyses -- see Alba et al. 1999; White, Biddlecom

144


and Guo 1993). In this context, this research not only disaggregates Asian Americans into five major ethnic groups to compare patterns of residential segregation/exposure and likelihood of living in a suburb but also separates out the characteristics and experiences of those who are either U.S.-raised or foreign-raised as well. DATA AND METHODOLOGY This analysis will examine the residential segregation and suburbanization for each Asian American ethnic group to determine (1) to what extent are Vietnamese Americans more likely to be segregated from Whites than are other Asian Americans and (2) to what extent do Vietnamese Americans have lower housing values than other Asian groups. As previously described in the Methodology section of the Introduction, this analysis includes those respondents in the 2000 Census who self-identify as being of Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Korean, or Vietnamese ‘race’ and are further separated by those are either ‘U.S.-raised’ (either U.S.-born or the 1.5 generation who immigrated to the U.S. before age 13) versus the ‘foreign-raised’ who arrived in the U.S. at age 13 or older, in order to differentiate the assimilation patterns of those who were primarily socialized inside or outside of American society. To begin examining the question of how neighborhoods that contain relatively large concentrations of Asian Americans differ from neighborhoods that contain smaller proportions of Asian residents, this analysis follows the lead of Logan, Alba, and Zhang (2002) and Alba, Logan, and Crowder (1997) and includes tract-level data to compare demographic and socioeconomic characteristics between tracts that contain at least 5%, 10% , and 25% of a given Asian ethnic group (ethnic “communities” or “neighborhoods”) versus non-ethnic communities. In other words, this data represents weighted averages for each given demographic or socioeconomic indicator, weighted by the number of a given Asian ethnic group that is in a tract. As these previous studies point out, each census tract can in fact contain many “ethnic neighborhoods” and that relatively low concentration threshold of 5% or 10%, we cannot always be certain that each ethnic


145

neighborhood can fully support an ethnic infrastructure that may contain religious and social service organizations, cohesive social networks, and/or businesses. In these cases, including the 25% threshold will allow us to examine these differences more clearly. At the same time, while this analysis does not analyze clustering formally, the spatial and ethnic similarity in adjacent census tracts may enough to facilitate the ethnic character and community-level resilience of ethnic neighborhoods. To augment the examination of the quality of ethnic versus nonethnic neighborhoods, this analysis also calculates measures of residential segregation from Whites. The two most common measures of residential segregation are the Index of Dissimilarity and the Exposure Index. As explained in greater detail by sociologists elsewhere (see Farley and Frey 1994; Frey and Farley 1996; Logan and Schneider 1984; Massey and Denton 1987; Massey and Denton 1993), the Index of Dissimilarity (D) is perhaps the best-known and most often-used measure of spatial segregation and basically measures the ‘evenness’ or differential distribution of minority and majority group members across census tracts within an urbanized area. D scores range from 0 to 100 and are interpreted as the percentage of one group who would have to move to achieve an even residential pattern in which every tract replicates the group composition of the city. A value of 60 or above indicates a very high level of segregation, while 30 to 59 are considered moderate, and values of 30 or less are considered low. On the other hand, the Index of Exposure (P*) refers to the racial/ethnic composition of a tract and the degree to which one racial/ethnic group is exposed to another racial/ethnic group (conversely, exposure of a group to itself is called the Index of Isolation). As with D, the values of P* range from 0 to 100. For example, an Exposure score of 10.0 for White-Asian exposure indicates that the average White lives in a neighborhood that is 10.0% Asian (Logan 2001). With this in mind, Indices of Dissimilarity from and Exposure to Whites are calculated for Asian Indians, Chinese, Filipino, Korean, and Vietnamese. Data for the residential segregation analyses comes from Summary File 1 of the 2000 Census PCT5 (whose universe is defined as ‘total Asian categories tallied for people with one Asian category only and people with no specific Asian category reported’). Stated differently, this table includes only those respondents who self-identified

146


themselves as having only one Asian racial/ethnic identity. As such, this definition excludes those who identify themselves using two or more Asian ethnicities (i.e., Korean-Japanese) because such respondents would be counted twice in the calculations, as a Korean and as a Japanese. This definition also excludes those who identified themselves as having two or more races (i.e., White-Chinese), since they would also be counted twice, as White and again as Chinese. Although there is a sizeable minority within the Asian American population who would therefore be excluded from the analysis based on this classification, the benefits of excluding them outweigh the costs since we will have a more clear and detailed picture of segregation from Whites, without having to worry about respondents who may be included twice in the analysis. While the PCT5 table within SF1 would have allowed us to calculate indices of dissimilarity and exposure for all Asians on a national level, this analysis uses data only from California because since it contains the largest population of Asian Americans (and more important, of Vietnamese) of any state by far, thereby facilitating interesting demographic and political dynamics of ethnic group contact and interaction (Bobo et al. 2000; Charles 2001; Horton 1995; Saito 1998). As such, in order to keep the analyses between residential segregation and suburbanization parallel and to avoid the conflation of group- versus individual-level national comparisons (see Logan, Alba and Leung 1996), calculations of dissimilarity and exposure are also limited to just California. The analysis also includes indices of dissimilarity from Whites and exposure for each of the five Asian ethnic groups within the nine California metropolitan areas whose proportion of Asian residents is at least one percent and ultimately, that contain the largest populations of the five Asian groups combined. Finally, the last component of residential assimilation and quality of residential environment is housing values among homeowners (logged to control for non-linear effects). As previously mentioned, other research on residential integration has used suburbanization as a dependent variable. I consider suburbanization to be informative but not completely satisfactory for the present analysis because in regard in California, there is not always a clear distinction among central city,


147

suburb, and areas categorized by the Census Bureau as city/suburb status unknown. Because of this lack of clear distinction among types of areas, the usefulness of merely looking at suburbanization is significantly reduced. Homeownership is also a common measure of residential assimilation, since it usually implies the attainment of a higher and more stable quality of life. Nonetheless, its usefulness is reduced once again in California because there is much diversity in the quality of housing. That is, some are located in low-income areas, are frequently of lower quality than comparable rental units, and therefore the distinctiveness of owning a home is significantly reduced. For these reasons, I consider housing values to be a much more direct and therefore useful marker or residential integration and the quality of residential environment. At the same time, in order to avoid the potential problem of selectivity (i.e., when characteristics of homeowners versus renters are significantly different), this analysis uses a tobit regression analysis that includes not just homeowners in the sample population for housing values, but renters as well. As explained in more detail elsewhere (see Bielby and Bielby 1999; Lewin-Epstein, Elmelech and Semyonov 1997; see McDonald and Moffitt 1980; Roncek 1992), tobit analysis is appropriate in analyses in which a significant number of cases in a sample population are not observed or have a value of zero. In this case, the dependent variable of housing values is “censored” (i.e., persons who are not homeowners have no housing value to report). One of the other benefits of using a tobit analysis is that in including all cases in the analysis of housing values, it increases the sample size and therefore, the model’s overall predictive power. At the same time, the interpretation of tobit regression coefficients is not as simple or straightforward as it is for conventional OLS or logistic regression results. Therefore, inferring conclusions and judgments using tobit results requires caution. The sample for this analysis on housing values includes adults 25 years or older, but just one person is included per household (randomly divided between men and women when the household is headed by a married couple so that married respondents are not in the model twice). This random selection between husband and wife is also in effect for spouses who are of different races, although this is admittedly an imperfect compromise. Also, because including only one respondent

148


per household limits the sample size significantly, U.S.- and foreignraised groups are combined to maximize the sample size of the final model, with a control variable for U.S.-raised included. Independent variables for housing values include individual-level measures such as male, age, and human capital measures such as not being proficient in English (to explore how linguistic assimilation affects outcomes), college degree or higher attainment, less than high school completion, logged personal income, and living in poverty. Social capital variables that represent the influence of communitylevel and/or ethnic-based resources include years in the U.S. being a U.S. citizen (a proxy for cultural assimilation), being married with spouse present, being self-employed, and being foreign-raised. Occupational attainment factors include working in the following industries most associated with Asian Americans: professional services or an “enclave-associated” industry (those that are prominently associated with self-employment) that combines garment, grocery/restaurant, personal services, and retail industries, and the working in a high skill occupation. Finally, all nine of the metropolitan areas are also included (with the reference category being all other metropolitan areas in California besides the nine listed) in the regression analyses to determine what effect metropolitan area (and by implication, each area’s level of segregation) may have on the likelihood of living in a suburb. RESULTS Ethnic and Non-Ethnic Neighborhoods Table 5.1 presents census tract-level data on demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of “ethnic” versus “non-ethnic” neighborhoods (with different thresholds set at five, ten, and 25 percent of residents of a given Asian ethnic group). At the five percent threshold, Filipinos have the most ethnic neighborhoods while Chinese


149

Table 5.1 Distribution and Characteristics of Neighborhoods, by Asian Group and Census Tract Concentration: California Type/Threshold of Ethnic Neighborhood 25% Asian Indian Number of tracts Number of Asian Indians

10%

5%

NonEthnic

6

39

102

6,595

3,891

19,320

27,100

168,455

% Asian Indian

30.8

15.5

6.8

1.8

% Other Asian

18.4

23.8

31.8

14.6

% non-Hispanic White

32.7

38.3

36.1

49.2

% foreign-born

60.4

45.9

42.4

28.9

% speaking English only Median household income % poverty % high skill occupation % homeowners Median housing value

36.1

46.5

46.3

60.0

$70,822

$77,399

$80,017

$62,401

9.8

6.8

7.5

10.6

68.4

59.6

52.2

42.1

14.0

41.1

61.0

58.6

$396,736

$443,192

$415,697

$307,094

Chinese Number of tracts

156

312

391

5,883

233,584

205,171

99,508

208,864

% Chinese

38.9

17.0

7.2

2.2

% Other Asian

12.2

17.9

16.1

10.1


23.4

34.7

43.5

51.7

% foreign-born

52.6

39.4

34.0

26.8

% speaking English only

32.7

47.1

54.3

62.0

$53,887

$68,355

$68,676

$60,995

% poverty

12.3

10.6

10.1

10.6

% high skill occupation

38.8

47.3

47.2

40.9

% homeowners

51.0

61.3

57.7

59.1

$345,619

$377,628

$377,391

$303,407

Number of Chinese

Median household income

Median housing value

150


Table 5.1 Distribution and Characteristics of Neighborhoods, by Asian Group and Census Tract Concentration: California (continued) Type/Threshold of Ethnic Neighborhood 25%

25%

25%

25%

Filipino Number of tracts Number of Filipino

60

265

448

5,969

89,530

182,016

126,817

319,940

% Filipino

37.7

16.8

7.1

2.5

% Other Asian

10.5

15.2

13.8

8.7


13.4

23.6

31.8

45.3

% foreign-born

48.2

43.3

37.4

28.4


36.4

40.1

46.3

57.9

$59,214

$58,031

$52,879

$52,651 12.8

Median household income % poverty

8.5

10.6

13.2


28.3

32.7

33.5

35.2

% homeowners

65.6

62.4

56.2

55.3

$241,667

$244,972

$228,757

$246,055

Median housing value Korean Number of tracts

24

96

180

6,442

33,634

61,240

51,659

164,903

% Koreans

37.8

16.3

7.3

2.0

% Other Asian

10.4

17.4

19.2

13.6


12.8

31.0

39.3

49.2

% foreign-born

63.4

47.0

39.6

30.5

Number of Koreans


22.5

39.6

47.6

58.1

$36,351

$53,132

$53,338

$60,172

% poverty

21.5

14.7

13.9

11.2


31.3

40.7

42.4

42.0


% homeowners Median housing value

26.8

49.3

47.4

56.0

$274,007

$278,867

$282,109

$304,139


151

Table 5.1 Distribution and Characteristics of Neighborhoods, by Asian Group and Census Tract Concentration: California (continued) Type/Threshold of Ethnic Neighborhood 25%

25%

25%

25%

Vietnamese Number of tracts Number of Vietnamese

50

150

223

6,319

70,905

101,602

66,660

165,054

% Vietnamese

37.8

15.6

7.3

2.0

% Other Asian

9.2

19.5

16.2

12.9


20.9

22.1

29.1

41.9

% foreign-born

53.0

46.9

40.1

30.7


29.5

35.3

43.5

55.2

$52,283

$61,785

$48,266

$54,747

% poverty

14.2

12.3

16.8

12.9


25.7

30.8

29.0

35.7

% homeowners

61.3

61.5

49.3

56.4

$225,774

$284,369

$214,812

$251,360


Median housing value

Source: 2000 Census Summary File 3 a Five, ten, and twenty-five percent neighborhoods are treated separately. That is, each neighborhood type is only counted once -- five percent neighborhoods include only those tracts that are 5%-9.99% Asian ethnic and do not include tracts that are at least ten percent ethnic; ten percent includes 10%-24.99. b Denominator: all residents of that particular Asian ethnicity within a given neighborhood c Percents are values, except for household income and housing value, which are median values

have the most ethnic neighborhoods at the 10% and 25% levels. Summarizing the results by Asian group, the results indicate that Asian Indians are the least likely to live in ethnic neighborhoods at any concentration. It is not surprising that Asian Indians are the least to live in ethnic neighborhoods since they, as the most socioeconomically advanced of all Asian groups, are most likely to follow the traditional assimilation model by leveraging their socioeconomic advantages and residentially integrate as quickly as possible. Interestingly, there are several findings that are only observed with Asian Indians and no other

152


Asian group. Specifically, the mean percentage of other tract residents who are White stays relatively stable as the percent Asian Indian in that tract increases. Another somewhat unusual finding for Asian Indians is that mean percent speaking Indic languages generally decreases as Asian Indian neighborhood thresholds increases. Finally, the higher the ethnic neighborhood threshold, the higher the percent of Asian Indians who have a high skill occupation. All three of these findings are unique to Asian Indians in Table 5.1 and may suggest that socioeconomic attainment levels are generally consistent through each threshold level of ethnic concentration. Chinese are the most likely to live in ethnic neighborhoods at the 10% and 25% levels and this is not surprising, given that they are the largest Asian group in California (with a population size of 747,127, slightly larger than Filipinos at 718,303) which is directly proportional to the number of times they exceed the 10% and 25% thresholds. In terms of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics across different levels of ethnic concentration, the findings for Chinese are closely aligned with our conventional expectations as they relate to percent Chinese, White, foreign-born, speaking English only, and speaking Chinese. The findings that Chinese in 25% ethnic neighborhoods have the highest poverty rate and the lowest household income and percent high skill occupation can also be seen as conforming to conventional expectations. Filipinos generally follow the same conventional patterns, except those who live in 25% Filipino neighborhoods actually have the highest household incomes and the lowest mean percent poverty rates, in contrast to Chinese. In this case, Filipinos in 25% ethnic areas seem to have more in common with ethnically concentrated Asian Indians than Chinese. The findings for Koreans also generally conform to conventional expectations, especially in regard to Koreans in 25% ethnic neighborhoods having the lowest household incomes, highest poverty rates, and lowest mean percent with a high skill occupation. However, while mean percent speaking English only declines with ethnic threshold level, mean percent speaking Korean shows no significant patterns across threshold levels, contrary to the conventional expectation that Korean language would be highest at the 25% ethnic


153

level. Looking at Vietnamese specifically, there does not seem to be many notable differences between those in non-ethnic versus ethnic neighborhoods at any level of concentration. As expected, the mean percents of Whites and speaking English only increase with each smaller percent ethnic threshold, while mean percent foreign-born decreases with each succeeding threshold level. However, the percentage of Vietnamese speaking Vietnamese does not exhibit any consistent pattern from the 25% through non-ethnic neighborhoods. The lack of consistent patterns also applies to mean percent poverty and mean percent high skill occupation. One seemingly notable finding is that Vietnamese who live in 25% ethnic neighborhoods have the smallest mean percent of other Asians in the same tract (difference to Koreans as the next lowest percentage is significant at the 0.01 level). In short, the bulk of the evidence in Table 5.1 suggests that across all five Asian groups, there are no consistent patterns to suggest which type of neighborhood is more affluent -- 5%, 10%, 25% ethnic or non-ethnic. As we look at the measures themselves across the five Asian groups, the patterns of percent other Asian (proportion of tract residents who are one of the four other Asian groups) among each Asian group are remarkably consistent across the five Asian ethnicities. That is, each group exhibits a bell-shaped curve -- the proportion of other Asians in their tract tends to peak at the 5% and 10% levels and then drops off at both sides (i.e., proportion of other Asians is lower at the non-ethnic and 25% levels). Not too surprisingly, the results further show that in virtually every instance, exposure to Whites and the percentage of residents who speak English only are higher in nonethnic neighborhoods than in ethnic ones and that the level of exposure to Whites decreases as the thresholds for Asian neighborhoods increase. In regard to speaking their native language, the data show mixed results as the threshold for ethnic neighborhoods increase. For Asian Indians, the proportion generally declines as the threshold increases. Conversely, for Chinese, Chinese language consistently increases in direct proportion with threshold levels, as we would normally expect. For Filipinos, Koreans, and Vietnamese, there does not seem to be any significant patterns one way or the other, although native language levels for the last two groups are rather high at all threshold levels.

154


Conversely, those in non-ethnic neighborhoods are more likely to speak English only and the proportions who speak English only consistently declines with rising ethnic neighborhood thresholds. In terms of socioeconomic comparisons between ethnic and nonethnic neighborhoods, the results reveal that there does not seem to be a consistent pattern across the five Asian groups when it comes to the percentage of residents in any type of neighborhood or at the 5%, 10%, or 25% levels when it comes to median household income, mean percent in poverty, and mean percent with high skill occupations. For example, among Asian Indians, those with the highest household incomes reside in 5% ethnic neighborhoods. For Chinese, the highest household incomes are located in both the 5% and 10% ethnic neighborhoods. For Filipinos, they’re split between the 25% and 10% neighborhoods. Regarding Koreans, the highest household incomes are found in non-ethnic neighborhoods while for Vietnamese, they’re in the 10% tracts. The only neighborhoods that exhibit noticeably low socioeconomic attainment levels (either in household income, mean percent in poverty, and/or mean percent with a high skill occupation) relative to other areas for a particular Asian group are perhaps Asian Indians in non-ethnic neighborhoods (whose overall socioeconomic attainment levels are only marginal relative to their 5%, 10%, and 25% ethnic area counterparts, not to other Asian groups), Chinese and Koreans in 25% ethnic tracts, and Vietnamese in 5% ethnic areas. Indices of Segregation and Exposure To get a another picture of residential integration, the next step in the analysis is to calculate indices of segregation from and exposure to non-Hispanic Whites for each of the five Asian ethnic groups across the nine metropolitan areas in California that contain the largest total populations of the five Asian groups, and these results appear in Table 5.2. For each of the nine MSAs and for each Asian group, the results list the group’s population size, its percentage of the total population, the index of dissimilarity from Whites score, and the exposure to Whites score. Looking across MSAs, the results show that Vietnamese tend to have the highest segregation scores and lowest exposure scores


155

regardless of their population size. For example, in the Los Angeles/Long Beach MSA (where Vietnamese are the second smallest Asian group), Vietnamese have a dissimilarity score of 63.80, considered severe segregation. In fact, Vietnamese in the Los Angeles/Long Beach MSA have the lowest exposure to Whites score at only 23.09. In the Orange County MSA where Vietnamese are the largest group by a wide margin, they have the highest dissimilarity score at 64.21 and the lowest exposure to Whites score at 34.29. In the Riverside/San Bernardino area, despite being average in terms of population size, Vietnamese again have the highest segregation score and the lowest exposure to Whites score. In fact, this pattern of Vietnamese being relatively small in size but having disproportionately high dissimilarity from Whites and disproportionately low exposure to Whites scores consistently repeats itself for all other MSAs in the results. The only instances in which Vietnamese did not have the highest segregation and lowest exposure scores were in the Los Angeles/Long Beach (where Chinese had the highest segregation score), San Diego, San Francisco/Oakland/Vallejo, and Ventura/Oxnard (where Filipinos’ segregation scores were slightly higher, combined with a lower exposure score as well). Instances where other Asian American groups had segregation scores over 60 included Chinese in Los Angeles/Long Beach and Sacramento and Filipinos in San Diego, San Francisco/Oakland/Vallejo, and San Jose. Taken together, Vietnamese have the highest average dissimilarity from Whites and the lowest average exposure to Whites scores of all Asian ethnic groups across the nine MSAs, at 61.22 and 36.38, respectively. In fact, in six MSAs, Vietnamese had dissimilarity from Whites scores of 60 or higher (a seventh was at 59.34), signifying substantial segregation from Whites. Overall, the segregation and exposure indices reveal that the Vietnamese appear to be the most segregated of Asian ethnic groups, possibly due in large part to the disadvantages associated with being a refugee group. However, as the previous data on ethnic versus non-ethnic neighborhoods show, residential clustering and relative isolation does not always correspond to significantly diminished life chances or quality of residential environment. To help us clarify this apparent anomaly, we move to the last component of this study on residential assimilation.

156


Filipino

Korean

Vietnamese

% of Total Population

Chinese

Los Angeles/ Long Beach Population Size (x1000)

Asian Indian

Table 5.2 Measures of Segregation from Non-Hispanic Whites, by CA Metropolitan Area and Asian American Group

60.27

294.18

260.16

186.35

78.10

0.63

3.09

2.73

1.96

0.82

Dissimilarity from Whites

42.70

67.00

51.81

59.84

63.80

Exposure to Whites

41.03

26.36

28.96

32.78

23.09

27.20

50.22

48.95

55.57

135.55

0.96

1.76

1.72

1.95

4.76

Orange County Population Size (x1000) % of Total Population Dissimilarity from Whites

40.74

38.66

38.77

52.11

64.21

Exposure to Whites

53.79

55.17

49.23

47.38

34.29

Riverside/ San Bernardino Population Size (x1000)

12.89

16.76

47.77

12.74

16.62


0.40

0.51

1.44

0.39

0.51


46.07

50.63

45.29

46.07

56.51

Exposure to Whites

48.36

47.62

44.84

50.95

38.85

14.90

32.02

27.51

5.70

16.84

Sacramento Population Size (x1000) % of Total Population

0.91

1.97

1.69

0.35

1.03


50.27

62.78

47.75

41.09

64.85

Exposure to Whites

54.88

46.44

50.80

66.20

42.06


157

Asian Indian

Chinese

Filipino

Korean

Vietnamese

Table 5.2 Measures of Segregation from Non-Hispanic Whites, by CA Metropolitan Area and Asian American Group (continued)

10.15

28.58

121.15

12.00

33.50

San Diego Population Size (x1000) % of Total Population

0.36

1.02

4.31

0.43

1.19


48.34

48.27

62.66

45.87

62.59

Exposure to Whites

61.24

59.40

35.29

59.30

40.84

17.39

203.65

100.52

13.31

14.29

1.00

11.76

5.81

0.77

0.83

San Francisco/ Oakland/Vallejo Population Size (x1000) % of Total Population Dissimilarity from Whites

40.49

56.64

64.83

41.54

59.34

Exposure to Whites

50.65

38.04

28.78

51.41

36.97

66.74

110.63

76.06

21.65

99.99

3.97

6.58

4.52

1.29

5.94

San Jose Population Size (x1000) % of Total Population Dissimilarity from Whites

46.14

41.33

62.23

38.04

65.36

Exposure to Whites

41.04

43.77

27.01

48.35

25.07

Stockton/Lodi Population Size (x1000)

5.11

5.39

21.65

.80

6.03


0.91

0.96

3.84

0.14

1.07


43.78

52.93

51.93

44.52

70.53

Exposure to Whites

46.46

40.12

33.74

54.77

31.21

158


Asian Indian

Chinese

Filipino

Korean

Vietnamese

Table 5.2 Measures of Segregation from Non-Hispanic Whites, by CA Metropolitan Area and Asian American Group (continued)

4.12

5.71

15.55

3.31

3.31

Ventura/Oxnard Population Size (x1000) % of Total Population

0.63

3.09

2.73

1.96

0.82


34.86

30.25

56.36

26.93

43.75

Exposure to Whites

67.60

71.31

40.30

66.28

55.03


43.71

49.83

53.51

44.00

61.22

Exposure to Whites

53.34

47.58

37.66

53.05

36.38

Averages

Source: 2000 Census Summary File 1, PCT4

Housing Values: Regression and Predicted Values The last dependent variable in this analysis of residential assimilation and quality of residential environment is housing values. Table 5.3 presents results on factors that are associated with logged housing values using tobit regression models that include both homeowners and renters. In general, tobit regression coefficients represent two sets of effects. The first is the effect on the values of the dependent variable from cases that have non-zero values of housing values (i.e., homeowners). The second is the effect of the cumulative probability of owning a home. Both of these effects are included within the tobit regression coefficients for each of the independent variables and it is


159

this combination of two results into one coefficient that makes interpreting tobit results difficult. There is however, a method to separate direct effects on housing values out of these tobit regression coefficients, which will be described shortly. For now, Table 5.3 presents unadjusted tobit regression coefficients on housing values, weighted by the probability of owning a home. In considering the effects of the independent variables on housing values, we can also generally assume that the variables also affect the likelihood of homeownership in the same ways. With that in mind, we generally expect that variables such as age, U.S.-raised, married with spouse present, college degree attainment, logged personal income, self-employed, working in a professional services industry, and working in a high skill occupation will have positive effects on both housing values and homeownership. Conversely, lack of English proficiency, living in poverty, and working in an enclave-associated industry should have negative effects. Using Whites as the comparison group, the results for in Table 5.3 generally confirm these expectations by showing that being married with spouse present, college degree attainment, logged personal income, high skill occupation, and being self-employed all have strong positive effects for the 65% of Whites who are homeowners. Being male has moderately negative effects for all groups including Whites, except for Filipinos and Koreans. Since these results include the dependent variables of owning a home and housing values together, we might speculate that the finding on males suggests that not only are they less likely to own a home than females but that their housing values tend to be smaller than women. Age generally has positive effects (except for Whites where it has a minor negative effect, perhaps suggesting a non-linear, bell-shaped distribution) and seems to have the largest effect on Chinese. Being U.S.-raised has a negative effect for Whites (most likely a reflection of the high socioeconomic attainment levels of foreign-raised Whites) but positive effects for all Asian groups (including the combined All Asians sample) except Asian Indians. Most of the metropolitan areas in the table also have positive effects in relation to all other MSAs in California as the reference category (although the Riverside/San Bernardino, Sacramento, and Stockton/Lodi areas have negative effects), with San Jose generally having the largest effects. The All Asians model in Table 5.3 also shows that Asian Indians exhibit a

160


positive effect on housing values relative to Vietnamese as the reference category while Chinese, Filipinos, and Koreans display negative effects relative to Vietnamese. Up to this point, I have interpreted the effects of the independent variables on housing values only in terms of having a positive or negative effect. In order to ascertain the exact magnitude of their effects on actual logged housing values, we need to isolate the effect of each independent variable on housing values for homeowners. Indeed, scholars have described a method to decompose the tobit regression coefficients to reveal a more valid interpretation of each independent variable’s effect on the dependent variable of housing values (for the exact methodology and formulae, see Lewin-Epstein, Elmelech, and Semyonov 1997; McDonald and Moffitt 1980; Roncek 1992). The calculations for this adjustment factor are shown at the bottom of Table 5.3. After applying the adjustment factors to the original tobit coefficients, we are then able to delineate the change in housing values for homeowners, weighted by the probability of having a non-zero value. As it turns out, these adjustment factors correlated directly with the overall rates of homeownership for each group (i.e., those groups with higher homeownership rates have a higher correction factor). In applying the adjustment factor to specific tobit coefficients in Table 5.3, we see that similar to the results from previous chapters and other structural assimilation outcomes, Vietnamese who have certain measures of socioeconomic attainment exhibit little, if any disadvantage. For example, among the Vietnamese, having a college degree had the largest effect on housing values (as it did with Whites but interestingly, not with any other Asian group). Specifically, being college educated translated into a $112,912 increase in housing values for Vietnamese, after applying the tobit correction factor.3 This boostfrom being college educated is the highest of all groups in Table 5.3. Conversely and once again, those Vietnamese who have lower

3

This calculation involved multiplying the tobit coefficient of college degree for Vietnamese in Table 5.3 (.222) with the adjustment factor for Vietnamese (.353), then taking the inverse natural log to arrive at the final value of $112,912.


161

10.23 -.14† .01** .29** .18** -.13** .21**

.33**

.10*

.12** .24** .05**

.11** .26**

Logged personal income Self-employed High skill occupation Enclave industry Professional svcs ind.

.07**

Central City Suburb Los Angeles/L. Beach Orange County Riverside/S. Bernardino Sacramento San Diego S. Francisco/ Oak./Vall. San Jose Stockton/Lodi Ventura/Oxnard

.20** .20** .29** .26** -.37** -.20** .27** .48** .91** -.12** .41**

Percent Homeowners -2 log likelih’d (x1000) Adjustment factor b

65.1 162.13 .459

.12** .20** .06†

11.18

11.40

.02* .09** .03†

.15†

.10**

.21**

.05** .20** .07**

.04† .24** .19*

Vietnamese

10.81 -.07** .00†

Koreans

Chinese

10.64 -.10** -.00** -.12** .26**

Filipinos

Asian Indians

Intercept Male Age U.S.-raised Married, spouse present Not English proficient College degree

Whites

Table 5.3 Regression Factors Affecting Logged Housing Values by Racial/Ethnic Group in CA using Tobit Regression

11.56 -.09** .00* .14** .09* -.20** .22** .05* .14**

.11* .29** .42**

.19** .16**

.26** -.33**

.31** -.42** -.40** .49** .29** .62** -.37* .27†

-.14* .33** .52** .89**

65.4 9.79 .459

59.9 2.29 .421

†

.23 .37** .97** -.57* 49.8 1.64 .366

.19** .20** .22* .29**

**

.22

.44** .15** -.28*

-.71** *

.48 .29 .73*

-.25* .52**

40.7 4.68 .274

48.1 2.15 .353

.33†

162


Table 5.3 Regression Factors Affecting Logged Housing Values by Racial/Ethnic Group in CA using Tobit Regression (continued) a b

c d

†

p≤.15; * p≤.05; ** p≤.01 Calculation of adjustment factor applied to tobit coefficient to produce a more valid interpretation of the independent effects on housing values (see LewinEpstein, Elmelech, and Semyonov 1997; McDonald and Moffitt 1980; Roncek 1992) Population: At least 25 years of age Omitted categories: Lcalities categorized as city/status unknown, and all other MSAs in CA other than those included in the equation

socioeconomic attainment levels still exhibit sizeable inequalities. In this case, lack of English proficiency had the largest negative effect for Vietnamese, to the tune of $97,457. The two metropolitan areas in which Vietnamese are most concentrated are Orange County and San Jose. Unfortunately Table 5.3 shows that the effect of living in Orange County for Vietnamese was not statistically significant and therefore, we are not able to discern what effect living in the metro area with the largest numbers of Vietnamese has on their housing values. However, the effect for Vietnamese in San Jose shows that, in conjunction with the regression model intercept, they have a moderately strong positive effect on housing values. If we apply the adjustment factor to these findings on metropolitan areas, it shows that Vietnamese living in the San Jose area enjoyed a boost of $125,216 to their housing values compared to those living outside the San Jose area, the highest of all groups in Table 5.3. In short, Vietnamese in California exhibit a wide range of socioeconomic characteristics and that is reflected in both their rates of homeownership and the factors that affect the housing values of homeowners. Those who are doing well enjoy the same types of returns on their socioeconomic capital while those who are struggling


163

Table 5.4 Predicted Housing Values using Adjusted Tobit Regression Results, by Racial/Ethnic Group and SES Example Poor Non-Hispanic White Asian Indian Chinese

Middle SES

Affluent

$73.0

$80.1

$113.9

$73.8 (1.01)

$76.7 (.96)

$92.3(.81)

$49.3 (.68)

$69.0 (.86)

$90.6(.80)

Filipino

$91.5 (1.25)

$96.9 (1.21)

$114.0 (1.00)

Korean

$100.5 (1.38)

$108.4 (1.35)

$129.7 (1.14)

Vietnamese

$118.2 (1.62)

$137.7 (1.72)

$163.7 (1.44)

Population: At least 25 years of age and homeowners Ratio of predicted housing values to those for Whites shown in parentheses for Asian groups a Poor: 25 years old, not U.S.-raised, unmarried, $15,000 income, not proficient in English, employee, non-high skill occupation; enclave-associated industry b Middle SES: 30 years old, U.S.-raised, married spouse present, $30,000 income, proficient in English, no college degree, employee, non-high skill occupation, non-enclave & non-professional services industry c Affluent: 35 years old, U.S.-raised, married spouse present, $50,000 income, proficient in English, college degree, self-employed, high skill occupation, professional services industry

continue to pay a large price relative to both their more affluent Vietnamese counterparts and other Asian Americans. Finally, to translate the regression results from Table 5.3 into “real world” examples, Table 5.4 presents predicted housing values using the adjusted tobit regression results by ethnic group and SES example, and including Whites as a comparison group. Each regression coefficient for each group that are presented in Table 5.3 has been multiplied by that group’s adjustment factor, shown at the bottom of the table, then applied to each set of socioeconomic characteristics to arrive at the final values used to calculated these predicted values. In this case, and similar to examples used in the previous chapters, hypothetical examples of respondents with poor, middle, and affluent SES characteristics are used to illustrate regression results. The results reveal that, somewhat surprisingly, in all three socioeconomic categories, Vietnamese consistently have the highest predicted housing

164


values, relative to not just other Asians but to Whites as well. The main reason for their high predicted housing values seem to be the very high intercept in Table 5.3 used to calculate the predicted values. Interpreting the conceptual significance of regression intercepts is inherently difficult of course and in this case, is even more so since they obviously do not correspond with homeownership rates and since tobit analysis is used in the analysis. As such, I can only speculate that the large intercept for Vietnamese (and by implication, their high predicted housing values) might reflect the general confluence of high rates of college degree attainment, high skill occupation, and relatively high family incomes in contributing to positive housing outcomes. The results from Table 5.4 also show that also contrary to expectations, Asian Indians and Chinese have predicted housing values that are lower that for Whites across all three socioeconomic categories (with the exception being poor Asian Indians having an equal predicted value to Whites). This finding for Asian Indians is particularly surprising since descriptive statistics in earlier chapters show that they tend to have the highest socioeconomic attainment levels of all Asian ethnic groups and in many cases, outperform Whites. Similar to the Vietnamese, the predicted values for Filipinos and Koreans are also consistently higher than that of Whites, although their relative advantage to White gradually declines as they move up the socioeconomic ladder. In short, the predicted housing values in Table 5.4 suggest that, based on tobit regression coefficients that have been adjusted for the likelihood of owning a home, Vietnamese and Koreans fare more favorably in relation to other Asian ethnic groups but to Whites as well. We should note that the predicted values in Table 5.4 differ from predicted values calculated from non-tobit coefficients (not shown here) that used conventional OLS regression analysis on housing values for only those who were homeowners. Specifically, predicted values based on conventional OLS analysis tend to show that although Vietnamese still have high predicted values compared to Whites and other Asians, their advantage relative to Whites is much smaller at the middle and affluent levels. In fact, in the conventional OLS analysis, poor Vietnamese have predicted housing values that are less than half


165

that for poor Whites. The predicted housing values that Asian Indians, Chinese, Koreans, and Filipinos display relative to Whites in Table 5.4 also worsen at the middle and affluent levels in the conventional OLS calculations. Nonetheless, the general positive showing of Vietnamese remains in both sets of predicted values and therefore, the conclusion that middle and affluent Vietnamese seem to enjoy many notable advantages in the quality of their residential environment still holds true. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS This analysis of residential assimilation in terms of quality of residential environment relied on three separate indicators: demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of ethnic versus nonethnic neighborhoods, calculations of residential segregation in nine major California metropolitan areas, and tobit factors associated with housing values. When it comes to ethnic versus non-ethnic Asian American neighborhoods in California, there do not seem to be significant socioeconomic differences (or at least consistent patterns of differences) among different Asian groups who live in tracts with similar proportions of co-ethnics. However, we are able to discern some notable differences between members of the some Asian ethnic groups who live in across non-ethnic, five-, ten-, or twenty-five percent Asian neighborhoods, although these patterns can differ from one Asian groups to the next. In other words, some Asian groups (i.e., Koreans and to a slightly lesser extent Chinese) exhibit noteworthy disadvantages by living in an ethnic neighborhoods. Conversely, Filipinos (and to a slightly lesser extent Asian Indians) seem to exhibit greater levels of socioeconomic attainment in neighborhoods with higher co-ethnic concentrations. This latter finding may lend support to the emerging proposition that many suburban Asian enclaves in California, although increasingly segregated, still provide its residents with the same kinds of amenities and high quality of life that are normally associated only with integrated suburbs. Moreover, the results for residential segregation among the five Asian American ethnic groups consistently show that there are many instances in which indices of dissimilarity for Asian American groups are high enough to be considered moderately and even highly

166


segregated. Most notably, the results clearly show that regardless of their population size or their population rank among other Asian groups within each metropolitan area, Vietnamese Americans consistently display the highest indices of dissimilarity from Whites and the lowest exposure indices from Whites. Further, in six of the nine MSAs included in the analysis, the level of White-Vietnamese residential segregation is above 60 (with a seventh just short of 60), the conventional threshold for significant segregation. This is rather strong evidence that the Vietnamese American population in California remains the most segregated from and has the least exposure to Whites of all the major Asian ethnic groups. Conventional wisdom would dictate that these high levels of segregation should result in diminished opportunities for socioeconomic mobility and a high quality of life but as the initial analysis on ethnic versus non-ethnic neighborhoods demonstrate, that scenario is not so clearly evident for Vietnamese in California. To further shed light on this apparent paradox, the last component of this study on residential quality of life uses tobit regression analysis to examine factors associated with housing values among Asian Americans. Interpreting tobit regression results is not as straightforward as conventional OLS regression results but it is possible to apply adjustment factors that approximate direct effects on housing values while still taking into account the selectivity factors of homeowners versus non-homeowners. The tobit regression coefficients generally differ from conventional OLS regression results on housing values in that tobit coefficients are generally smaller in magnitude (although their corresponding intercepts tend to be larger) and that these smaller coefficients reflect the selective characteristics of homeowners. At the same time, the overall patterns of findings do not seem to deviate significantly from those associated with OLS regression results. With that in mind, these tobit regression results indicate that in general, all Asian American ethnic groups including Vietnamese that are doing well socioeconomically do not suffer much inequality in regard to returns on housing values. In fact, predicted housing values (after applying an adjustment factor to the tobit coefficients) show that across all three socioeconomic categories,


167

Vietnamese have the highest values among all Asian groups, even higher than Whites. At the same time, those Vietnamese who are not proficient in English and/or have low income exhibit unfavorable effects on housing values (and by implication, likelihood of being homeowners). In other words, similar to other chapters and analyses that illustrate their precarious position, those Vietnamese who are struggling socioeconomically seem to be at the most disadvantage, relative to not just other Asians but also to other Vietnamese as well. In short, this analysis reinforces the notion of a significant bifurcation among the Vietnamese American population. That is, there is a large proportion of the Vietnamese American population, foreign- or U.S.-raised, who have little, if any trouble achieving favorable returns on housing values from their socioeconomic attainment. Not even significant levels of residential segregation from Whites seem to negatively impact their residential quality of life. On the other hand, those Vietnamese who are struggling (i.e., living in poverty or not proficient in English, both remnants of their refugee status) seem to have the most difficulty among all Asian groups in regard to this outcome of residential assimilation. CONCLUSION This chapter used data from the 2000 Census from California to examine the characteristics and dynamics of residential assimilation among Vietnamese Americans and other Asian Americans (with Whites also used as a comparison group). In general, the analysis of residential assimilation and quality of residential environment for Vietnamese Americans seems to illustrate a generally positive picture. While Vietnamese Americans are the most residentially segregated of all the major Asian ethnic groups in California, that segregation does not necessarily translate into socioeconomic disadvantage. It is true that those Vietnamese residents who lack English proficiency or who live in poverty still struggle to attain standards of residential quality comparable to their other Asian American and even Vietnamese counterparts. At the same time, as tobit regression and predicted housing values demonstrate, Vietnamese apparently have little trouble attaining the same kinds of quality housing that other Asian Americans

168


and Whites enjoy. Therefore, the theme of diversity is exemplified once again -- diversity not just among Asian ethnic groups but also within the Vietnamese American community itself. While there are still many who struggle socioeconomically, for the vast majority of Vietnamese, at least those who are homeowners in California, their progress toward residential assimilation, as measured by their quality of housing, is very promising.

CHAPTER SIX

Glimpses Into the Future: Interracial and Interethnic Marriage The final outcome of assimilation among Asian Americans that I will examine is marital assimilation, represented in this chapter by having an endogamous (same ethnicity), pan-Asian (spouse of a different Asian ethnicity), or White spouse. Previous chapters have moved from structural-level forms of assimilation (socioeconomic attainment) into more individual-level outcomes (self-employment and residential integration) and as such, this chapter concludes the analysis of assimilation by analyzing marriage as a form of social assimilation. While there is debate over whether intermarriage represents cultural assimilation on the individual or the structural level, there is little doubt that it symbolizes a powerful component of social integration for racial/ethnic minorities and immigrants. Of course, there are other measures of behavioral and cultural assimilation. One is naturalization or the degree to which immigrants become naturalized U.S. citizens. However, as we discussed in Chapter Two, because of their unique refugee experiences of escaping communist domination, Vietnamese Americans were predisposed to having high rates of naturalization as they relinquished their political affiliation and loyalty to the new government of Viet Nam in favor of their new adopted homeland of America. As a result, their naturalization process is unique and cannot be accurately compared to that of other Asian American groups who do not have refugee backgrounds. Similarly, linguistic assimilation (becoming fluent in English or conversely retaining one’s native language through subsequent generations) has also been used as a measure of behavioral assimilation but because census data cannot determine whether English fluency occurred before or after immigration, it is not used here as an accurate measure of cultural assimilation. Therefore, for our purposes, marrying outside one’s own ethnic group is perhaps the most tangible and most visible form of cultural assimilation. In fact, several sociologists note that intermarriage (also known as outmarriage) is perhaps the ultimate and final breakdown of social distance and completion of assimilation (see Alba 1990; 169

170


Bogardus 1967; Gordon 1964; Waters 1990) and in recent years, addition, demographers, social scientists, and community activists are keenly observing recent intermarriage trends in an effort to predict the political, demographic, and cultural consequences for the Asian American population (Lee and Edmondson 2005). Within this context, the measure of cultural/behavioral assimilation that concerns us is marriage patterns of the five Asian American ethnic groups in question. The three specific outcomes we will examine are rates and factors associated with having an endogamous, pan-Asian (an Asian of a different ethnicity), or White spouse. The goal is to analyze the effect that structural and ecological measures may have on the cultural environment that frames such an individual-level choice as race/ethnicity of one’s spouse. THE HISTORY OF ASIAN AMERICAN INTERMARRIAGE As historians point out, early immigrants from Asia, and in particular China, were frequently characterized as evil, filthy, and completely incompatible with American society (Tchen 2001). As Kitano and Daniels (2000) detail, historians such Hubert Howe Bancroft, the first important English-language historian of California, is an ideal example of this era of hostility and contempt directed against Asian immigrants, as he insisted that the Chinese were “alien in every sense” and derided the “color of their skins, the repulsiveness of their features, their undersize of figure, their incomprehensible language, strange customs and heathen religion.” (Kitano and Daniels 2000). As another example, before becoming president, Woodrow Wilson wrote that “Caucasian laborers could not compete with the Chinese . . . who, with their yellow skin and debasing habits of life, seemed to them hardly fellow men at all, but evil spirits rather” (Kitano and Daniels, 2000). At the height of this anti-Chinese and anti-Asian “yellow peril” movement and on the heels of other restrictive legislation, antimiscegenation laws were enacted that prohibited “Mongolian” races from intermarrying with Whites (Chan 1991; Fong 1998; Takaki 1998). While there have been interracial marriages since before the U.S. was founded as an independent nation (Pagnini and Morgan 1990), strict

Interracial and Interethnic Marriage

171

anti-miscegenation laws restricted marriage between Whites and racial/ethnic minorities from becoming commonplace (Kalmijn 1993; Moran 2001). In fact, not until 1967 did the U.S. Supreme Court rule that such laws were unconstitutional. While these anti-miscegenation laws affected virtually all immigrants from Asia, they seemed to have the most negative impact on the emerging Filipino community in that Filipinos had developed the reputation of being the most inclined toward socializing with White women and history shows that they encountered much hostility because of this real or perceived tendency (Chan 1991). Filipinos fought these anti-miscegenation laws by arguing that they were of “Malay” origin, rather than “Mongolian” but were ultimately unsuccessful in escaping these restrictions. The primary effect of such laws was to severely restrict marriages between Asian Americans and Whites and to cripple incorporation into American society, despite wishes and sincere attempts on the part of many Asian Americans to do so. At the same time, many scholars argue that such restrictions facilitated the development of Asian ethnic enclaves as a reaction to the exclusion and discrimination they received at the hands of American society. Retreating into their own immigrant enclaves as a matter of economic and physical survival, many of these isolated Asian communities eventually became largely self-sufficient and ultimately played a vital role in the slow social-psychological and cultural incorporation of Asian immigrants and successive Asian American generations into mainstream society (Hing 1993; Okihiro 2001; Zia 2000). However, when anti-miscegenation laws were repealed in the late 1960s, the demographic structure of intergroup contact began to assert itself. Asian Americans, because of their small population size, were much more likely to have interpersonal contact with Whites, as the overwhelmingly largest population, than with other racial/ethnic groups (Blalock 1967; Blau and Duncan 1977). Combined with the rapidly growing nature of the Asian American population, this structural phenomenon played a key role in the expansion of intermarriage between Whites and Asian Americans.

172


CONTEMPORARY DYNAMICS OF ASIAN INTERMARRIAGE Class and Status Mobility Sociologists offer some hypotheses on why Asians (or any other racial/ethnic minority group) may want to intermarry with Whites. For example, Gordon’s (1964) theory suggests that marrying a White person is the ultimate form of assimilation and signifies full acceptance by White society. Therefore, an Asian American may marry a White person because s/he (consciously or unconsciously) wants to be fully accepted in White society. Merton’s (1941) exchange thesis posits that racial/ethnic minorities could attain high income and occupational success to offset their perceived lower racial/ethnic status in order to intermarry with Whites (Jacobs and Labov 2002). The exchange thesis has been used to explain the predominance of Blacks men intermarrying with White women at a much higher rate than Black women intermarrying with White men. However, its applicability to Asian Americans (and to a lesser extent Hispanic Americans) has been challenged (Fu 2001; Jacobs and Labov 2002; Zai and Ito 2001). Following from this notion, the theory of hypergamy argues that Asian Americans (and other racial/ethnic minorities) marry Whites to increase their social status, since Whites generally occupy the highest socio-cultural position in the U.S.’s racial hierarchy (Hwang, Saenz and Aguirre 1997; Kitano et al. 1984; Root 2001). In other words, even if a working-class Asian American marries another working-class White, her social status will still improve, compared a marriage to someone else in her ethnic group or even another Asian. In this sense, intermarriage can also be seen as a strategy to augment socioeconomic attainment or as a corollary development as the racial/ethnic minority achieves income and occupational mobility and becomes more structurally assimilated into mainstream American society. Another hypothesis points out that a racial/ethnic minority who marries a White may be motivated to abandon his ancestral identity, possibly to escape perceived societal stigmas associated with that identity in favor of identifying with the majority group (Kalmijn 1993; Pagnini and Morgan 1990). The case of Japanese Americans after their


173

internment during World War II illustrates this notion. Takezawa (2000) explains that many Japanese Americans ceased to identify themselves as Japanese in the aftermath of their internment experiences, as they associated being Japanese with shame and embarrassment, and that only through the subsequent events surrounding the redress movement did they “rediscover” their Japanese identity and feel comfortable identifying as such again. In their study of Asian American intermarriages in New York City, Zai and Ito (2001) also find that Asian American women were more likely than their male counterparts to exhibit linguistic and behavioral patterns that suggested attenuation of their cultural/ethnic attachment after marrying Whites. Many scholars also point out that beyond cultural factors, structural-level conditions can have important influence in the marriage process. Specifically, geographic location is one factor that can significantly impact available marriage pools (Blau, Blum and Schwartz 1982; Kalmijn 1998). Simply put, in areas where there is a large concentration of a given racial/ethnic group, there will be more chances to marry endogamously compared to areas in which a given racial/ethnic group is more dispersed (Edmondson and Passel 1999). In this context, the research generally finds that intermarriage is more common inside metropolitan and urban areas (Lee and Yamanaka 1990). The effects of group size and marriage market size on intermarriage have been the subject of debate among sociologists and many strategies have been used to account for geographic and locational variability (Schoen 1986). For example, Harris and Ono (2005) caution that collapsing local marriage markets into one large national statistical agglomeration lead to overestimates of intermarriage between Whites and Asian Americans and Latinos. Lee and Fernandez (1998) prefer to account for group size by calculating the Index of Intermarriage Distance to illustrate relative levels of social distance between two groups, and which has controls for group size built into the equation.

174


Gender Differentials The extant research also consistently shows that Asian American women are much more likely to intermarry with Whites than are Asian American men, even after controlling for socioeconomic characteristics (Jacobs and Labov 2002; Lee and Fernandez 1998; Zai and Ito 2001). Many scholars argue that historically, it was very common for Asian women to be portrayed as docile, subservient, exotic, and/or mysteriously seductive and that these distorted images lead White males to “fetishize” Asian American women (Fong 1998; Lee 1999; Yu 2000). These images can be traced back to Chinese prostitutes who were “imported” into the U.S. back in the 1800s and continue to be perpetuated in many contemporary television shows and movies. These biased perceptions can also lead to the stereotype of Asian women of being more accepting of traditional patriarchal forms of marriage and gender roles (Kalmijn 1998). Further, the presence of U.S. military personnel in Asian countries such as Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and Viet Nam after World War II led to the phenomenon of “war brides” (Asian women marrying U.S. military servicemen) that further contributes to the gender imbalances in regard to intermarriage among Asians (although the presence of war brides obviously does not exist in regard to Asian American women born or raised in the U.S.). These critics of Asian American intermarriage point out that in most areas of popular American culture, rarely does one see the opposite happening -- Asian males being the subjects of infatuation or sexual desire by White women. Such critics also note that Asian males have been and continue to be popularly portrayed as non-sexual martial arts experts, nerds and geeks, or evil villains and that this portrayal serves to eliminate Asian males as potential rivals to White males for the affection of Asian women (Fong 1998; Lee 1999; Yu 2000). This ongoing debate on the motivations for White intermarriage, particularly among Asian women, directs us to look at how both Asian American men and women can become the targets of objectification and how this reinforces and perpetuates ethnic stereotypes against both. At the same time, there are several barriers that can impede Asian intermarriage with Whites and other non-Asian racial/ethnic groups. For example,


175

the legacy of anti-Asian sentiment in America has led to persistent cultural stereotypes about Asian Americans, including but not limited to Asians being all the same, Asians as perpetual foreigners who are not interested in assimilating into American society, and perceptions of Asians (particularly men) as “nerdy,” strange, evil and or at least devious (Lee 1999; Lowe 1996; Yu 2000). On the “supply” side, cultural traditions that have historically restricted intermarriage include many families’ strict adherence to ethnic traditions and attitudes on marriage and the family. These norms and behaviors often prescribe that Asian American children concentrate on their academic performance and professional preparation rather than their social activities and that they give deference to their parents’ authority and wishes on how the children’s lives should develop. In addition, cultural norms about Asian children and adults having to take care of their parents as they grow older and more frail often preclude intermarriage proclivities (Ferguson 2000; Lee and Yamanaka 1990). Many times, particularly for young Asian immigrant women, they are forced into marrying within their own ethnic group by family members and cultural traditions (Fong and Yung 2000). These critiques may also gloss over how patriarchy and sexism can still exist within many elements of traditional Asian culture and that many Asian women conclude that these beliefs are rather restrictive and clash with contemporary notions of gender equality in American society. Asian Intermarriage with non-Whites While most forms of Asian American intermarriage involve partnering with White spouses, we cannot neglect that there are sizeable instances in which Asian Americans intermarry with other Asians of a different ethnicity (a “pan-Asian” marriage), or with Blacks, Hispanics, or Native Americans (although examples of marriages with last group are exceedingly rare). In fact, many scholars have noted that the prevalence of pan-Asian marriages seems to be increasing among Asian Americans (Lee and Fernandez 1998; Shinagawa and Pang 1996). Such pan-Asian marriages were quite scarce a few decades ago, mainly because the relatively small size of the Asian American population mitigated a large marriage pool of potential pan-Asian spouses. However, with the unprecedented influx of Asian immigrants starting

176


in the late 1960s, the Asian American population and resultant marriage pool as increased substantially. Along with that, the development of a pan-Asian racial identity has also facilitated more interethnic Asian contact and interaction. While scholars such as Espiritu (1992) note that there are numerous historical and contemporary political and cultural barriers that potentially attenuate a strengthening of the pan-Asian racial identity (i.e., no common language, histories of military conflict between Asian countries, etc.), others observe that there may be a cultural and political connection between more pan-Asian marriages and the development of a pan-Asian racial identity, especially among the U.S.-born generations (Rosenfeld 2001; Shinagawa and Pang 1996). The question becomes, what exactly is the relationship between greater pan-Asian racial identity and more pan-Asian marriages, how likely are both phenomena to increase in the near future, and what implications does this connection have for the larger assimilation picture of Asian Americans? In contrast, the prevalence of Asian American intermarriages with Black and Latino spouses are generally much lower than pan-Asian intermarriages. There are very few studies on these forms of Asian American intermarriage, mainly because the prevalence of such unions remains low, although there are individual exceptions with particular Asian groups to be described. In reading the occasional personal narrative, we find that in many cases, there seems to be a strong cultural taboo within Asian communities against unions with Blacks and to a slightly lesser extent, Latinos (Root 2001). One reason for this is the perceived racial hierarchy of the U.S. with Whites at the top and Blacks and Latinos at the bottom. Many Asian immigrants may be heavily influenced by stereotypical images of Blacks and Latinos in the American media and many Asian small business owners find themselves located in inner city urban areas where most of their customers are poor and working class Blacks and Latinos. In these situations, biased perceptions by Asian immigrants can be more readily reinforced against Blacks and Latinos.


177

Because Asian-Black and Asian-Latino marriages are still relatively rare4, this chapter will focus on describing the general patterns of marriage among the five Asian American ethnic groups in question in terms of endogamous marriage, pan-Asian intermarriage (marrying an Asian of a different ethnicity), and intermarriage with Whites. In addition, following the lead of Hwang, Saenz, and Aguirre (1997), the analysis will focus on those Asian Americans who were either born in the U.S. or came to the U.S. as children (the 1.5 generation), since the goal is to determine which factors affect marriage decisions in the context of their lives as Asian Americans. In doing so, we avoid confounding the results by including Asians who were already married once they arrived in the U.S. These patterns will be further analyzed along selected characteristics including gender, nativity, and U.S. birth. The purposes of these analyses are (1) compare intermarriage rates between Vietnamese Americans and other Asian American ethnic groups and (2) identify and interpret the role that the cultural environment have in the role of such a personal and individual choice such as decisions about marriage partners. DATA AND METHODOLOGY To measure and analyze how various demographic, structural, and individual-level factors influence rates of endogamous Asian marriage, pan-Asian intermarriage, and intermarriage with Whites for Vietnamese, Chinese, Filipino, Asian Indian, and Koreans of both 4

Although not characteristic of just Asians, the traditional Asian pursuit of status within the community and the larger society frequently leads to a rigid prohibition against interpersonal relationships with groups that are perceived to be of “lower” social standing than themselves, in this case Blacks and Hispanics/Latinos. This bias can also be further fueled by persistent stereotypes, exaggerated negative media portrayals, or strained owner-customer relations in Asian small businesses (Abelmann and Lie 1995; Cheng and Espiritu 1989; Jo 1992; Waldinger 1995). In this context, it is not surprising that many Asian families, being foreign-born and not yet fully integrated in the particulars of American history and race relations, translate these images and beliefs into strong opposition against intermarrying with Blacks and Hispanics/Latinos. The question will be to what extent younger and presumably, more assimilated Asian Americans refute these prohibitions and marry Blacks and Hispanics/Latinos.

178


genders, data comes from the 2000 Census 5% PUMS national sample. The research is limited to adults who are at least 18 years of age and who are married with spouse present. Japanese Americans are not included in this analysis because in terms of demographic characteristics, contrary to the five other Asian groups included herein, they are largely third and fourth generation (Census Bureau 2001), thereby making meaningful comparisons among the other Asian ethnic groups difficult. Also, in order to focus on factors of Asian American life that influence marriage decisions, the analysis is limited to the U.S.-raised -- those who are either U.S.-born or who immigrated to the U.S. before age 13 (the 1.5 generation). Excluding respondents that got married prior to immigration avoids the potential of confounding the results, as this group tends to inflate in-group marriage rates (see Hwang, Saenz and Aguirre 1997). Logistic regression models will be used, with three separate dependent variables analyzed: having an endogamous (intraethnic), pan-Asian (another Asian from a different ethnic group), or White spouse. Models that have an endogamous spouse as the dependent variable will be analyzed using ordinary logistic regression while the two remaining dependent variables (having a pan-Asian or White spouse) will be analyzed using multinomial logistic regression -- one set with the endogamous spouse model used as the comparison model and a final set for pan-Asian spouse using White spouse as the comparison model. Using multinomial logistic regression allows us to more accurately compare the effects of independent variables between the pan-Asian and White spouse models, since these two outcomes best represent greater marital assimilation vis-à-vis having an endogamous spouse. In these logistic regression models, independent variables will include three categories of factors. First are factors relating to human capital including having a college degree or higher versus less than high school completion, being a homeowner, having a high skill occupation, working in a professional services industry, working in an “enclave-associated” industry (see the Methodology section of the Introduction chapter), not being proficient in English, and logged income. Also used are “social capital” variables that include being


179

self-employed, U.S.-born (to differentiate the second generation from the 1.5), living in either the Los Angeles/Orange County, and New York/Northeastern New Jersey, or San Francisco/San Jose CMSA (an rough proxy of social capital in the form of a greater likelihood of living near or participating in an Asian American ethnic community or enclave). The third set of factors that will be used in logistic regression models is ethnic group identity -- Chinese, Filipino, Korean, and Vietnamese (with Asian Indian excluded as the reference category). These variables allow us to determine if being a member of that particular Asian ethnic group, by itself and net of independent factors, is directly associated with the likelihood of being married to Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, or Other Asian Americans. With the inherent limitations of Census data, this is the best approximation available to measure ethnic culture characteristics that may impact the intermarriage decision. Further, interaction variables involving Vietnamese and college degree attainment, high skill occupation, and living in the LA/OC, NYC, or SF/SJ areas are also included to measure how these variables influence intermarriage outcomes for Vietnamese specifically. We also note that another limitation regarding Census data (and cross sectional data in general) is the ambiguity surrounding causality. That is, while using Census data, we cannot be completely certain that independent factors (college attainment, occupation, being self-employed, homeownership, etc.) occurred before the dependent variable (becoming married). As such, we must exercise caution in interpreting regression analyses with an eye toward considering alternative explanations and uncertainty regarding causality. RESULTS Descriptive Patterns Table 6.1 presents descriptive statistics on the proportion of marriages by Asian ethnicity of husbands and wives and the race/ethnicity of their spouses. It also disaggregates these statistics by total U.S.-raised and by U.S.-born only. In looking at the rates across all five all U.S.-raised Asian American groups, it becomes clear that there is a notable gender

180


Table 6.1 Rates (Percents) of Marriage by Spouse’s Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Nativity Status, 2000

Asian Indian Pan-Asian White Black Hispanic

Asian Indians Total Husbands Wives (632) (708) 51.7 46.2 3.2 2.0 35.3 40.5 2.8 5.4 5.5 3.1

Chinese Pan-Asian White Black Hispanic

Total Husbands (2,781) 55.4 12.9 25.5 0.3 3.2

U.S.-Born Husbands (309) 52.4 2.9 34.0 3.9 4.9

Wives (352) 47.2 2.0 36.6 7.4 3.7

U.S.-Born Husbands (2,052) 53.2 14.4 25.6 0.3 3.3

Wives (2,400) 44.9 11.4 37.3 0.8 2.8

U.S.-Born Husbands (1,436) 32.9** 12.0* 37.5 0.8 8.6

Wives (1,753) 27.0 8.2 44.8 4.1 8.1

Chinese Wives (3,319) 46.4 10.7 36.5 0.8 3.1 Filipino

Filipino Pan-Asian White Black Hispanic

Total Husbands (2,251) 36.6 10.2 36.1 0.7 9.4

Wives (2,940) 28.0 7.1 46.3 4.3 8.2


181

Table 6.1 Rates (Percents) of Marriage by Spouse’s Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Nativity Status, 2000 (continued) Korean

Korean Pan-Asian White Black Hispanic

Total Husbands (631) 46.6 10.6 37.1 0.3 3.3

Wives (1,153) 25.5 7.7 60.7 1.9 2.6

U.S.-Born Husbands (247) 39.3* 16.2* 36.0 0.4 4.5

Wives (373) 25.5 12.3** 55.2* 1.3 2.9

Vietnamese Pan-Asian White Black Hispanic

Vietnamese Total Husbands Wives (514) (651) 62.3 49.2 11.3 8.6 19.5 36.7 0.8 1.2 3.7 2.9

U.S.-Born Husbands (85) 75.3* 3.5* 11.8* 1.2 5.9

Wives (130) 53.8 3.1* 36.2 1.5 3.1

Differences between Total U.S.-Raised and U.S.-Born significant at the * p≤.05 and p≤.01 levels a Sample sizes for husbands and wives in parentheses b Universe: At least 18 years of age and U.S.-Raised c “Other Asian American”: Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, or Vietnamese (excluding the reference group) d Percentages for each group do not add up to 100 because spouses may be of a difference race/ethnicity than those listed **

difference when it comes to the choice of spouse among U.S-born and 1.5 generation Asian Americans. Specifically, for all five Asian ethnic groups, women are more likely to outmarry than men. Also, in each of the five Asian groups, women are more likely to be married to Whites and Blacks than are men. On the other hand, in all instances, Asian men are more likely to have a pan-Asian spouse than are women. Looking at the rates for each of the Asian groups separately, the results reveal that Vietnamese American husbands have the highest rates of

182


endogamous marriage among all Asian husbands listed while Vietnamese wives have the highest inmarriage rates among Asian American women, along with Chinese and Asian Indians. The results also show that Chinese and Vietnamese men and women have the highest rates of having a pan-Asian spouse. Further, Korean, Filipino, and Asian Indian men have the highest rates of having a White spouse while for women, Koreans have the highest White intermarriage rates by far (the only Asian group to be over 50%). The results in Table 6.1 also indicate that Chinese and Vietnamese husbands have rates of being in an endogamous marriage that are more than twice that for a marriage to a White spouse. Among the women however, only Asian Indian, Chinese, and Vietnamese wives have endogamous rates that higher than that for White intermarriage and in fact, Filipino and Korean wives are significantly more likely to be married to a White spouse than to an endogamous one. In short, there are significant gender differences in U.S.-raised Asian American marriage patterns, with women much more likely to outmarry than men. In addition, these gender differences roughly correspond to ethnic differences as well, as Filipinos and Koreans of both genders are more likely to outmarry than Asian Indians, Chinese, and Vietnamese. The proportions of each marriage outcome for U.S.-born Asian American husbands and wives do not differ much at all from the total proportions and generally confirm the overall findings. In fact, there are only a few instances in which there are statistically significant differences between proportions for the total U.S.-raised and U.S.-born. Nonetheless, these few instances of difference are particularly noteworthy. Specifically, U.S.-born Filipino and Korean men are less likely to have an endogamous wife and are more likely to have a panAsian spouse than their 1.5 generation counterparts. In addition, U.S.born Korean women are less likely than their 1.5 generation counterparts to have a White husband but more likely to have a panAsian husband (although the final rate of having a White spouse still overshadow that for having a pan-Asian spouse). These aforementioned instances may suggest that pan-Asian marriages are increasingly common among U.S.-born Filipino and Koran men and


183

Table 6.2 Factors Affecting the Race/Ethnicity of Spouse among Asian American Men, 2000 Pan-Asian (Multinomial, Endog. Base)

White (Multinomial Endog. Base)

.31 .01** -.33** 1.24** .59** .19** -.08* .19**

-1.53

-.99 -.02** .25** -1.75** -.88**

Pan-Asian (Multinomial, White Base)

Endogamous (Ordinary Logistic)

Race/Ethnicity of Wife

-.54** .02** .30**

Intercept Age U.S.-born Not English proficient Less than high school College degree Logged personal income Homeowner Self-employed High skill occupation Professional services ind. Enclave industry LA, NY, or SF CMSA

1.00**

-.62**

-1.30**

.69**

Asian Indian Chinese Filipino Korean

.27* -.33** -.88** -.57**

-1.43**

.63** .53** 1.07** .88**

-2.06** -.57** -1.00** -.83**

χ2 -2 Log Likelihood

.55** -1.25** -.66**

.10**

.16*

665 8,514

-.17**

782 10,603

Note: Endogamous model coefficients calculated using ordinary logistic regression; Pan-Asian and White models calculated using multinomial logistic regression with endogamous spouse as the base comparison; Final Pan-Asian model calculated using multinomial logistic regression with White spouse as the base comparison a * p≤.05; **p≤.01 b Universe: Married, at least 18 years of age, and U.S.-raised c Omitted category: Vietnamese

184


Korean women, which tend to be viewed as an indicator of greater assimilation compared to being in an endogamous marriage. However, the situation for U.S.-born Vietnamese seems to represent the opposite finding. That is, U.S-born Vietnamese men are more likely to have an endogamous spouse and less likely to have either a pan-Asian or White spouse than their 1.5 generation counterparts. In addition, U.S.-born Vietnamese women are less likely to have a pan-Asian spouse than their 1.5 generation counterparts. Although the sample sizes for U.S.-born Vietnamese men and women are still relatively low, these findings may suggest that in contrast to other Asian groups for whom being U.S.-born is increasingly associated with greater marital assimilation, being U.S.-born for Vietnamese may be associated with more endogamous marriage and therefore, less marital assimilation. Logistic Regression Results Now that we have a basic statistical description of marriage patterns among U.S.-raised Asian Americans, the question becomes, what factors are associated with which marriage outcome? To examine this question, we turn our attention to factors that affect the likelihood of having a co-ethnic, pan-Asian, or White spouse. Tables 6.2 and 6.3 present results of logistic regression analysis on these dependent variables, with all five Asian American ethnic groups combined into a single sample, for husbands and wives respectively. According to conventional research on assimilation, we would expect endogamous marriages to be associated with lower levels of structural assimilation. On the other side of the spectrum, conventional assimilation models would predict that marriages to Whites should be associated with higher levels of structural assimilation. Therefore, being U.S.-born, college degree, logged income, high skill occupation, and professional services industry should have negative effects on the likelihood of endogamous marriage but positive effects on White intermarriage. Conversely, lack of English proficiency, less than high school education, being self-employed, and living in the LA/OC, NYC, or SF/SJ metropolitan area should have


185

positive effects on endogamous marriage and negative effects on White intermarriage. We might consider pan-Asian marriages to occupy a middle ground along this continuum, from a cultural standpoint. Therefore, making assumptions about how different factors may affect this particular marriage outcome is bound to involve much uncertainty so for now, we will refrain from doing so and will just observe what the actual results tell us. Looking at Table 6.2 for Asian American men, the results for the first marriage outcomes, endogamous Asian American marriages, reveal that for the most part, the conventional assumptions hold true. That is, lack of English proficiency, less than a high school education, and LA/OC, NYC, or SF/SJ metro area all have positive effects on the likelihood of being in an endogamous marriage while logged income has a negative effect. However, results regarding other variables did not conform to these conventional assumptions. Specifically, college degree and high skill occupation both had positive effects on endogamous marriage, contrary to usual sociological expectations. The results for endogamous marriage in Table 6.2 also point out that each Asian ethnic group in the model had a negative effect relative to Vietnamese as the reference group and that none of the Vietnamese interaction variables had any effect. Therefore, it appears that while there is still support for conventional assimilationist assumptions, there are enough irregularities in the results to suggest that the support is less than complete. The factors that affect the likelihood of having a pan-Asian spouse, the results from Table 6.2 (calculated using multinomial logistic regression, along with the White spouse model) suggest that the conventional assumptions once again generally hold true. That is, lack of English proficiency, less than high school education, and living in LA/OC, NY/NJ, or SF/SJ areas had negative effects on the likelihood of having a White spouse, while being U.S.-born had a positive effect. These results are in line with what we would expect according to conventional assimilation models and as previously mentioned, they are stand in contrast to the results for factors affecting being in an endogamous marriage. That is, there are no instances in which the effects for the independent variables are the same between the endogamous and pan-Asian model. Rather, the multinomial logistic regression coefficients tell us that in relation to having an endogamous spouse as the base comparison model, those Asian men who have a

186


pan-Asian wife are much more likely to be U.S.-born and proficient in English and less likely to live in the LA/OC, NY/NJ, or SF/SJ metropolitan areas. In fact, the bulk of the results are more similar to the White intermarriage model. The results for factors that affect the likelihood of having a White spouse reveal that similar to the pan-Asian model, being U.S.-born has a positive effect while lack of English proficiency, less than high school education, and living in LA/OC, NY/NJ, or SF/SJ areas all had negative effects. The White spouse model also adds age and high skill occupation (interestingly) as negative factors and logged income as a positive factor. Because the White spouse model was analyzed using multinomial logistic regression along with the panAsian model, we are able to compare the magnitude of effects between these two models. Looking at the last column in Table 6.2 that shows multinomial logistic regression coefficients for having a pan-Asian spouse vis-à-vis a White spouse as the base comparison, we see that being U.S.-born has a positive effect. This funding seems to suggest that either U.S.-born Asian Americans, controlling for other factors, are more likely to have a pan-Asian rather than a White spouse, or that among Asian American men in a pan-Asian marriage, they are overwhelming U.S.-born. Another interesting comparison is that living inside the LA/OC, NY/NJ, or SF/SJ metropolitan areas also has a positive effect for having a pan-Asian spouse, a clear indication that Asians who live outside areas with large numbers of Asian Americans are much more likely to have a White versus a pan-Asian spouse. At the same time, the results from this column in Table 6.2 show that age has a positive effect for having a pan-Asian spouse, meaning that younger Asians are more likely to be married to Whites than to other Asians, a finding that appears to contradict the notion that the most recent cohort of Asian Americans tends to be very likely to have a panAsian spouse. If anything, these conflicting findings illustrate that the entire landscape of marital assimilation among Asian Americans is quite complex and requires more detailed examination to completely understand the multidimensional dynamics of this process.


187

Table 6.3 Factors Affecting the Race/Ethnicity of Spouse among Asian American Women

Asian Indian Chinese Filipino Korean χ2 -2 Log Likelihood

Pan-Asian (Multinomial, Endog. Base)

White (Multinomial Endog. Base)

Pan-Asian (Multinomial, White Base)

Intercept Age U.S.-born Not English proficient Less than high school College degree Logged personal income Homeowner Self-employed High skill occupation Professional services ind. Enclave industry LA, NY, or SF CMSA

Endogamous (Ordinary Logistic)

Race/Ethnicity of Husband

-.28 .02** -.23** 1.12** .47** -.14* -.07**

-2.29 -.01** .49** -1.39** -.69**

-2.15** .01** .32**

.11*

-.15 -.02** .17** -1.2** -.63** .26** .08**

-.36**

.38*

.43**

-.57**

-.97**

.12* .81**

-1.65**

.41** -1.87**

*

.22 -.87** -1.11** 671 9,068

*

.48

.81** 1.27**

-.67** -.80**

806 11,549

Note: Endogamous model coefficients calculated using ordinary logistic regression; Pan-Asian and White models calculated using multinomial logistic regression with endogamous spouse as the base comparison; Final Pan-Asian model calculated using multinomial logistic regression with White spouse as the base comparison a * p≤.05; **p≤.01 b Universe: Married, at least 18 years of age, and U.S.-raised c Omitted category: Vietnamese

188


Nonetheless, these comparisons between the pan-Asian and White spouse models do support the notion that pan-Asian marriage might represent a middle ground between endogamous and White marriages. Looking at the same analyses for U.S.-raised Asian American women in Table 6.3, the results are generally comparable. Similar to the results for their male counterparts, the data show that in the endogamous model, age, lack of English proficiency, less than a high school education, and living in LA/OC, NY/NJ, or SF/SJ areas all had positive effects. At the same time, being U.S.-born and logged income all had negative effects, similar to their male counterparts. At the same time and again similar to Asian American men, there are some exceptions including a positive effect for professional services industry (compared to no effect for men) and negative effects for college degree (positive for men) and self-employment (no effect for men). Further, there was no effect on being a homeowner or high skill occupation for women, compared to the positive effects for men. In addition, the results for the endogamous model show that Filipinos and Koreans had negative effects relative to Vietnamese as the reference category while Chinese had a positive effect, whereas all four Asian groups had negative effects for men. Once again, the conventional assimilation assumptions are generally confirmed in the results for endogamous marriage for women. Also similar to their male counterparts, the results for U.S.-raised Asian American women in the pan-Asian marriage model (again, calculated using multinomial logistic regression, along with the White spouse model) suggests that the traditional assimilationist assumptions are once again confirmed. For instance, using endogamous marriages as the base comparison model, being U.S.-born and logged income have strong positive effects on pan-Asian marriage. In addition, age and living in the LA/OC, NY/NJ, or SF/SJ areas have negative effects on pan-Asian marriage, compared to positive ones for endogamous marriage. These results for factors associated with having a pan-Asian spouse for Asian American women are also rather similar to those for having a White spouse. That is, for both models, age, lack of English proficiency, less than high school completion, and living in the LA/OC, NY/NJ, or SF/SJ areas all have negative effects while being U.S.-born,


189

college degree attainment, logged income, and being self-employed all have positive effects. All these factors confirm traditional assimilationist assumptions, with the possible exception of the positive effect for being self-employed, since conventional hypotheses hold that self-employment is associated with lower levels of structural assimilation (although her self-employment in some cases may be in a high skill occupation as a doctor or lawyer, for example). However, using multinomial logistic regression allows us to more directly compare the effects between the pan-Asian and White spouse models. In doing so by examining the last column in Table 6.3, we observe that similar to males, being U.S.-born again has a positive effect in the pan-Asian model. This may suggest that either U.S.-born Asian Americans are much more likely to marry a pan-Asian spouse than a White spouse (net of independent factors) or that a predominant number of those who have pan-Asian spouses possess these characteristics of being U.S.-born. However, once again similar to their male counterparts, age has a positive effect which means that young Asian American women are more likely to marry Whites than a pan-Asian husband. Therefore, we must proceed with caution in hypothesizing that while pan-Asian marriages are still relatively rare compared to White intermarriages, there are indications that the emerging U.S.-born group of Asian Americans (men and women) may be more likely to choose pan-Asian marriages over White ones (also as suggested in Table 6.1 for U.S.-born Filipino and Korean men and Korean women). Now that we have a better idea about factors that affect marriage outcomes for Asian Americans as a combined group, we turn our attention to analyses that compare these factors among the five Asian ethnic groups, as presented in Table 6.4. (The models for each Asian group include both men and women, with a control variable for male.) The same expectations on which factors are likely to affect which marriage outcomes still hold true here. With that in mind, the results across the endogamous spouse model generally show that for most Asian groups, the conventional assimilationist hypotheses are confirmed. For example, in instances where there is an effect, lack of |English proficiency, less than high school education, and living in the LA/OC, NY/NJ, or SF/SJ metropolitan areas all have positive effects

190


χ2 -2 Log Likelihood Pan-Asian Spouse (Multinomial Endog. Base) Intercept Age Male U.S.-born Not English proficient Less than high school College degree

.48**

-.13*

.66

**

46.7 1,548

-4.57

-1.11** .03** .40** -.44** 1.25** .98** .12** -.09** -.16† .41** .11†

-.32**

-2.61** .02** 1.05**

-.18† 1.03**

.49** -.30** .74** .46** -.28** -.08* -.28† .15*

-.64** .51** .41* 1.44** .52* -.33*

-.42† -.20† .58**

**

.65

656 7,104

180 5,741

-.90 -.03**

-2.95 .02**

**

**

.62 -1.19* -.98*

1.79** .62† .91**

Vietnamese

Korean

.73**

Filipino

Endogamous Spouse Intercept Age Male U.S.-born Not English proficient Less than high school College degree Logged income Self-employed Homeowner High skill occupation Professional services ind. Enclave industry LA, NY, or SF CMSA

Chinese

Asian Indian

Table 6.4 Factors Affecting Spouses’ Race/Ethnicity by Asian American Ethnic Group

.61 -1.20† -.73* .29*

.32† 1.43**

.28† .77**

295 1,645

90.5 1,320

-2.35 -.55** .61** -1.07† -.58*

-.70 -.07** -.97† -1.15†


191

Logged income Self-employed Homeowner High skill occupation Professional services ind. Enclave industry LA, NY, or SF CMSA χ2 -2 Log Likelihood White Spouse (Multinomial Endog. Base) Intercept Age Male U.S.-born Not English proficient Less than high school College degree Logged income Self-employed Homeowner High skill occupation Professional services ind. Enclave industry LA, NY, or SF CMSA χ2 -2 Log Likelihood

-.93*

72.3 1,578

-1.91 -.52**

†

-.56

.14*

-.82

**

72.3 1,578

Vietnamese

Korean

Filipino

Chinese

Asian Indian

Table 6.4 Factors Affecting Spouses’ Race/Ethnicity by Asian American Ethnic Group (continued)

-.35**

.29† -.74**

-.68**

.54*

.32†

717 9,348

300 7,035

403 2,259

169 1,592

.73 -.03** -.58** .37** -1.56** -1.12** .10* .18 -.37**

-1.21

**

717 9,348

-.29 -.52** .26** -1.15** -.64** .46** .10* .39*

2.97 -.03** -1.25** -1.80** -.79* -.91**

-.59 -.90** -.54* -1.51** -1.13** .35†

.54* -.27† -.63**

-.75

**

300 7,035

-.40† -1.78**

-1.43**

403 2,259

169 1,592

192


χ2 -2 Log Likelihood N

-1.62 .01** .54** .25*

-2.67 .02** .49** .35**

-5.33 .04** .70** .61**

Vietnamese

Korean

-3.37

Filipino

Pan-Asian Spouse (Multinomial White Base) Intercept Age Male U.S.-born Not English proficient Less than high school College degree Logged income Self-employed Homeowner High skill occupation Professional services ind. Enclave industry LA, NY, or SF CMSA

Chinese

Asian Indian

Table 6.4 Factors Affecting Spouses’ Race/Ethnicity by Asian American Ethnic Group (continued)

.46 -.08** .94**

1.95† 1.25* †

.34

-1.08**

.35* 1.04

*

72.3 1,578 1,153

**

.48

717 9,348 5,598

300 7,035 4,729

403 2,259 1,544

169 1,592 1,023

Note: Endogamous model coefficients calculated using ordinary logistic regression; Pan-Asian and White models calculated using multinomial logistic regression with endogamous spouse as the base comparison; Final Pan-Asian model calculated using multinomial logistic regression with White spouse as the base a † p≤.15; * p≤.05; **p≤.01 b Universe: Married, at least 18 years of age, and U.S.-raised


193

(with logged income having a negative effect) on being in an endogamous marriage. At the same time, there are some inconsistencies that preclude full support of the traditional assimilationist model. Specifically, U.S.-born has a negative effect for Chinese and Filipinos but a positive one for Vietnamese, which is particularly interesting and suggests that even U.S.-born Vietnamese may still exhibit less marital assimilation (in the conventional sense) compared to other Asian groups. In addition, college degree has a positive effect for Koreans but a negative one for Filipinos and Vietnamese. Finally, although their effects are only statistically significant at the 0.15 level and therefore not valid here, the negative effects for self-employment among Chinese, Filipinos, and Koreans tentatively stand in contrast to conventional expectations. The results for the Vietnamese seem to show some contradictory findings. For instance, being U.S.-born and high skill occupation have positive effects on endogamous marriage (contrary to our expectations) but lack of English proficiency, less a high school degree and enclaveassociated industry also have positive effects (in line with our expectations). In general, the results for endogamous marriages in Table 6.4 tend to confirm the findings from Tables 6.2 and 6.3 in that in most cases, the conventional assimilationist expectations are confirmed in regard to factors associated with having an endogamous spouse. However, the results from Table 6.4 once again highlight that there are notable differences among the separate Asian groups and interesting exceptions to the conventional assimilationist expectations, particularly among the Vietnamese. The results for the pan-Asian marriage model are decidedly much more mixed and represent a more eclectic combination of factors that mimic both the endogamous and White marriage models. Although the incidences of such pan-Asian marriages are still relatively small, they are abundant enough to warrant our attention and plentiful enough to produce significant results. Looking at the multinomial logistic regression coefficients (using the endogamous model as the base comparison), age has positive effects for Filipinos but a negative one for Chinese and Vietnamese. Interestingly, being U.S.-born has positive effects for Chinese, Filipinos, and Koreans but a negative one for Vietnamese. Lack of English proficiency and less than high school completion generally have negative effects (which would indicate that

194


pan-Asian marriage represents higher levels of structural assimilation) as we would expect. Finally, living in the LA/OC, NY/NJ, or SF/SJ metropolitan areas has positive effects for Koreans but negative ones for Chinese and Filipinos. On the other side of the assimilation spectrum, the results for factors affecting the likelihood of having a White spouse generally show that once again, most of the assumptions according to the traditional assimilation perspective are fulfilled. Again, using multinomial logistic regression for the White spouse model (using the endogamous model as the base comparison), age, lack of English proficiency, less than high school completion, and living in the LA/OC, NY/NJ, or SF/SJ metropolitan areas have negative effects in almost all cases, as we would normally expect. Similarly, being U.S.-born, logged income and college degree attainment both have positive effects. But once again, there are some notable anomalies -- college degree has a negative effect for Koreans but more importantly, being U.S.-born has a negative effect for Vietnamese. Therefore, although the results for the White intermarriage model generally correspond to conventional expectations, the results for Vietnamese once again suggest that they stand as notable exceptions to these general patterns of marital assimilation among Asian Americans. As we compare the multinomial logistic regression results for the likelihood of having a pan-Asian spouse (with having a White spouse as the base comparison), we note one interesting observation. That is, once again being U.S.-born has a positive effect vis-à-vis having a White spouse for Chinese, Filipinos, and Koreans. For these three Asian groups, it once again lends support to the notion that the second, third, and later generation of Asian Americans may be increasingly likely to marry a pan-Asian spouse, although it is likely to take some time before the numbers of pan-Asian marriages equals that for White marriages among U.S.-born Asian Americans. At the same time, we again acknowledge that for Chinese, Filipinos, and Koreans, age has a positive effect and that this finding tempers the hypothesis that contemporary Asian Americans are more likely to have a pan-Asian spouse than ever before. Interestingly however, this last model shows that age has a negative effect for Vietnamese, meaning that younger


195

Vietnamese are more likely to have a pan-Asian spouse than a White one, controlling for other factors. All in all, the results from Table 6.4 illustrate three main points. First, similar to the findings in Tables 6.2 and 6.3, the data generally support the conventional expectations contained within the traditional assimilationist perspective about which factors are likely to be associated with endogamous versus White intermarriages. Of course, there are the occasional exceptions but for the most part, these expectations hold true. Second, there is a lot of diversity between the five Asian ethnic groups when it comes to specific factors that affect their marriage outcomes. For U.S.-raised Vietnamese specifically, the results across each of the three marital assimilation outcomes suggest some interesting patterns that seem to contradict the traditional assimilation expectations. For instance, Vietnamese are the only group in which being U.S.born has a positive effect when it comes to endogamous marriage but a negative effect for both pan-Asian and White marriage models. Vietnamese are also distinctive in exhibiting a positive effect on high skill occupation in the endogamous model combined with a negative effect for the White marriage model. While there are other instances in which the results for Vietnamese conform to the traditional assimilationist model, there are enough notable exceptions to suggest that even those Vietnamese who seem to have high levels of structural assimilation may be less assimilated in terms of exogamy, a finding that is supported by their overall marriage patterns as described in Table 6.1. Third, the multinomial comparisons between the pan-Asian and White spouse models again support the notion that while still representing a fraction of all outmarriages among Asian Americans, pan-Asian marriages seem to be increasingly prominent within the Asian American population. This trend seems to be especially conspicuous for the latest cohorts of Asian Americans -- the U.S.-born, as the results consistently indicate that those who are in pan-Asian marriages are overwhelmingly U.S.-born Asian Americans, or even perhaps that U.S-born Asian Americans may be increasingly likely to choose a pan-Asian spouse over a White one, controlling for other factors.

196


DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS In this discussion of marital assimilation, the data on marriage outcomes among U.S.-raised Asian Americans reveal some interesting comparisons. The results across both genders and Asian American ethnic groups tend to show that in most cases, the traditional assimilationist expectations hold true when it comes to hypothesizing how various independent factors are associated with having either an endogamous, pan-Asian, or White spouse. That is, in regard to endogamous marriages, the data suggests that Asians with endogamous spouses tend to have less human capital and are more likely to live within one of the three metropolitan areas that contain the largest Asian American populations. Conversely, the factors that influence White intermarriage seem to reflect an almost opposite mirror image -- Asians with a White spouse tend to be have much higher levels of human capital and are much more likely to live outside of either the either the LA/OC, NY/NJ, or SF/SJ CMSAs. The finding that Asian Americans living in one of these three CMSAs are much more likely to have an endogamous (and to a lesser extent a pan-Asian) spouse rather than a White one is not surprising. This may suggest that Asian ethnic communities and enclaves may play a significant role in influencing the very personal, individual-level decision of choosing marriage partners. As scholars such as Zhou and Bankston (Bankston and Zhou 1995; Zhou and Bankston 1998) have demonstrated using Vietnamese Americans as an example, the ethnic solidarity within certain Asian communities can be powerful enough to overcome external assimilation pressures in influencing the behaviors of the second and 1.5 generation. Alternatively, and considering the lack of clarity regarding causality, it may be a demographic-driven phenomenon in which the increasing size of the Asian American population has led to more abundant opportunities for different types of marriage partners. Further, it is certainly possible that this finding may reflect how many endogamous couples tend to gravitate toward Asian-heavy metropolitan areas. Similarly, the finding that human capital variables tend to favor marriages with pan-Asian or White spouses is not surprising either


197

since, as previous chapters have shown, socioeconomic attainment is generally associated with greater structural and cultural assimilation. In the case of marriage decisions, Asians who are more highly skilled, educated, and affluent are more likely to have interpersonal contact with a larger range of racial/ethnic groups, thereby increasing their range of marriage choices. Ultimately, the comparison of factors affecting the likelihood of having a pan-Asian versus a White spouse seems to tell the most interesting story. In many respects, the regression results in Tables 6.2 and 6.3 indicate that U.S.-raised Asian American men and women who have high levels of human capital and socioeconomic attainment are most likely to have a White spouse, as conventional assimilationist hypotheses predict. At the same time, there are several instances where the same characteristics are also significantly associated with having a pan-Asian spouse. Perhaps the most notable of these findings is in regard to being U.S.-born. That is, for Asian American men and women and two of the Asian ethnic groups, being U.S.-born apparently has stronger associations with having an pan-Asian spouse than with having a White spouse. However, we temper this hypothesis based on the finding that age has a positive effect for pan-Asian marriage, contrary to the pattern suggested by the U.S.-born finding. On the one hand, this result for being U.S.-born may simply reflect that the overwhelming majority of those in pan-Asian marriages are U.S.-born, much more so than those with White spouses. On the other hand, it may represent a more meaningful pattern whereby U.S.-born Asians who outmarry are exercising a greater range of choices in regard to their marriage partners. While pan-Asian marriages are still relatively rare, the results suggest that as a larger proportion of the Asian American population are composed of the second and later generations, its incidence among and cultural significance for the Asian American population is likely to increase, although it is more difficult to predict just how common the practice actually becomes. Of course, there is still a considerable amount of socioeconomic diversity and cultural differences among Asian Americans. As some scholars have noted, pan-Asianism as a united voting bloc on the political front still remains an elusive goal (Espiritu 1992), whether or not it is tied to marriage patterns. Nonetheless, the increasing prominence of pan-Asian marriages is certainly plausible for many

198


reasons. For instance, Shinagawa and Pang (1996) hypothesize that there may be several possible reasons for the apparent increase in panAsian marriages in recent years. They include the growing size and urban concentration of Asian Americans and the resultant growth of social networks, increased similarity in socioeconomic attainment among Asians, greater acculturation, and a greater degree of a shared group identity based on heightened racial consciousness. Although we cannot say that this trend automatically translates into a broader acceptance and support of a pan-Asian American identity in the cultural or political sense and while rates of pan-Asian marriages will probably have to increase substantially before they significantly impact the dynamics of American race relations, this demographic and sociological phenomenon certainly deserves more attention in years to come. How does this affect the assimilation patterns of Vietnamese Americans? As previously mentioned, one of the most interesting findings is that in among Asian American men and women and for most Asian ethnic groups, being U.S.-born is strongly associated with having a pan-Asian or White spouse. However, one of those exceptions is Vietnamese Americans for whom being U.S.-born has a strong negative association with having a pan-Asian or Whites spouse and conversely, a positive association for having an endogamous spouse. Combined with the descriptive statistics in Table 6.1 that show Vietnamese already having the highest endogamous (and therefore the lowest exogamous) marriage rates, these results clearly support the notion that when it comes to marital assimilation, Vietnamese are the least socially integrated of the Asian ethnic groups in this research. Perhaps this is due to the relatively recent refugee experiences of many Vietnamese. That is, although U.S.-born Vietnamese Americans have no personal experiences with being refugees from Viet Nam, their parents are likely to have been direct participants in that episode and may still have sentiments and/or family situations that continue to exert a strong influence over the lives of their children, even as their children becomes adults and enter marriage. While it would be a safe assumption to categorize foreign-raised Vietnamese as the least assimilated of all the major Asian groups due to


199

their refugee status, applying the same categorization to U.S.-raised Vietnamese might be somewhat surprising. At the same time, this finding is not entirely inconsistent with previous chapters that showed that those Vietnamese who have lower levels of human capital and socioeconomic attainment, whether they are foreign- or U.S.-raised, tend to exhibit lower levels of structural assimilation. As such, the marital assimilation patterns of Vietnamese Americans are likely to have lasting repercussions on the racial/ethnic composition of the Vietnamese American population for years and decades to come. CONCLUSION This chapter used 2000 Census data to compare assimilation outcomes between Vietnamese Americans and other Asian American ethnic groups and found that when it comes to choice of spouse (either endogamous, pan-Asian, or Whites), a prominent marker of social assimilation (Alba 1990; Bogardus 1967; Gordon 1964; Lee and Yamanaka 1990; Pagnini and Morgan 1990; Waters 1990). While there are definite indications that pan-Asian and White intermarriages are on the increase among most U.S.-raised Asian Americans, Vietnamese (especially the U.S.-born generation) exhibit characteristics that may call into question the traditional assimilationist expectation that second and later generations are almost instinctively inclined to outmarry. At the least, the finding among Vietnamese that being U.S.-born is strongly associated with having an endogamous spouse stands in direct contrast to other Asian ethnic groups and lend support to the notion that Vietnamese Americans continue to be the least assimilated of the major Asian ethnic groups in the analysis. Nonetheless, as the incidence of marrying outside one’s ethnic group becomes more common, whether the spouse is pan-Asian or White, the sociological dimensions of this phenomenon deserve close scrutiny as a new generation of multiracial, multiethnic, and pan-Asian individuals (Vietnamese and otherwise) will undoubtedly challenge fundamental notions about the meaning of racial/ethnic identity.


CONCLUSION

Forging Their Own Mainstream The history of Asians in the U.S. has been a long and sometimes stormy experience. Asian Americans have encountered excitement and anticipation countered with hostility and prejudice; success countered by exclusion, and assimilation countered with ambivalence. In that respect, Asian Americans occupy a unique position in historical and contemporary American society. On the one hand, they are frequently seen as foreigners and outsiders and as such, not “real” Americans. With this in mind, they are frequently the targets of prejudice, discrimination, and exclusion. On the other hand, Asian Americans have become quite resilient and have persevered through these attempts to impede their progress. As a result, several indicators point out that many Asian Americans have achieved extraordinary levels of socioeconomic success and because of these examples of success, Asian Americans are also frequently admired and envied by many sectors of American society. It is this dichotomy of exclusion versus admiration and perception versus reality that characterizes the history and contemporary experiences of many Asian Americans. To explore these issues of attainment versus discrimination in more detail, this research used Census data to analyze different outcomes of structural assimilation among five different Asian American ethnic groups, with a particular focus on Vietnamese Americans. The first of the four categories of structural assimilation was socioeconomic assimilation, which includes conventional measures of socioeconomic attainment such as income, high skill occupation, and Duncan’s socioeconomic index (SEI) score. The second category was entrepreneurship, or the likelihood of owning one’s own business. The third category of structural assimilation was residential assimilation, as measured by the characteristics of ethnic versus non-ethnic neighborhoods by different levels of ethnic concentration, indices of residential segregation, and factors that affect both the likelihood of owning a home and housing value. The last category was marital assimilation, described as factors that affect the likelihood of having an endogamous, pan-Asian, or White spouse. Using data from the 2000 Census, each of the analyses included models for the five major Asian American ethnic groups (Asian

201

202


Indians, Chinese, Filipinos, Koreans, and Vietnamese), for men and women separately in most instances, and separate models for U.S.raised (1.5 generation and higher) versus foreign-raised (first generation immigrants). Within this context however, the research clearly noted a few inherent limitations of this kind of analysis. First, since Census data is cross-sectional in nature, it does not have the capacity to measure longitudinal changes over time and therefore frequently cannot account for previous experiences. Similarly, Census data cannot always perfectly determine causality or motivation. For example, Census data cannot accurately determine whether an immigrant who came to the U.S. already had a college degree, which may have facilitated his/her entry, or whether s/he came to the U.S. and received a college degree here. As another example, the data cannot conclusively tell whether an immigrant settled in a particular metropolitan area because the area has a large co-ethnic population, only that that particular area is associated with having large numbers of immigrants who have settled there. Despite these inherent limitations, Census data has been and continues to be the best source of data to analyze national samples of minority group characteristics and as the results clearly show, is more than capable of producing robust, reliable, and rather interesting results. Finally, this research has a particular focus on Vietnamese Americans because of several reasons. On the one hand, Vietnamese Americans share much in common with other Asian ethnic groups. For instance, since their arrival onto the American racial/ethnic landscape, they have established prominent co-ethnic communities and burgeoning economic enclaves in several major metropolitan areas. In the process, Vietnamese Americans have transformed fundamental economic, political, and cultural dynamics within these localities, similar to other Asian American groups before them throughout American history. As such, and again similar to several other Asian groups, Vietnamese Americans have attained remarkable socioeconomic mobility in a relatively short amount of time. However, in this process, Vietnamese Americans have also encountered resistance and even outright hostility from established racial groups, again similar to what many other Asian American groups have historically encountered. In the same way, the

Conclusion: Forging Their Own Mainstream

203

Vietnamese community has had to learn and adapt to these conditions as individuals and as a collective group struggling to find their own place in this ever-evolving milieu. At the same time, Vietnamese Americans are quite unique from other Asian Americans in several significant ways. The primary difference of course is that their presence in the U.S., at least initially, as not voluntary. As refugees from the Viet Nam War, one of the most unpopular and costly (in material and psychological terms) wars in American history, not to mention the only international war the U.S. has ever lost, the Vietnamese had little other choice but to come to the U.S. and conversely, the U.S had little other choice but to accept them. This paradoxical dynamic has led to contradictory sentiment and treatment from both sides. That is, many Americans felt sorry and guilty for their situation but at the same time, resentful that they were receiving vast amounts of government assistance. At the same time, many Vietnamese were overjoyed at being able to flee certain disaster had they stayed in Viet Nam and to start a new life in the “land of opportunity” but also resentful for having to adjust so abruptly to a completely new environment and to encounter unexpected animosity from their neighbors. Therefore, Vietnamese Americans share many things in common with other Asian American ethnic groups but are also very unique in many other ways. With this in mind, it is likely that their patterns of structural assimilation into American society will result in some similarities and some differences with those for other Asian American ethnic groups. The key question becomes which outcomes represent more significant departures from those of other Asian groups and which factors play a more important role in which outcomes among these different Asian American ethnic groups. That is, our research questions are, how are Vietnamese Americans different from other Asian American ethnic groups in terms of structural assimilation, what accounts for these unique characteristics, and how important are these differences in affecting how Vietnamese Americans assimilate into the American mainstream?

204


SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Vietnamese Reconstruction I started by examining the historical, demographic, and socioeconomic characteristics of Vietnamese Americans in detail, particularly by cohort of immigration. The statistical evidence show that there is a significant amount of diversity within the Vietnamese American population, first in terms of ancestry and ethnicity, as many have Chinese or other ethnic Vietnamese minority (i.e., Montagnard, Khmer, Cham, or Cambodian) origins. As expected though, the most significant differences among Vietnamese Americans are according to cohort of arrival -- the first cohort contained the largest concentration of the middle- and upper-class Vietnamese who had relatively high levels of education and occupational skills. With their human capital advantages and the passage of time, this initial cohort has integrated into American society very well, despite the personal and family disruptions and even trauma that many encountered. Subsequent waves of arrivals, whether they are classified as “refugees” or conventional “immigrants,” exhibit levels of socioeconomic attainment commensurate with the amount of time they’ve had to adjust to American society. That is, the wave of Vietnamese immigrants/refugees that immediately followed the initial 1975-1976 wave in 1977-1982 have higher levels of socioeconomic attainment than the most recent wave of Vietnamese arrivals from 1995-2000. This is entirely consistent with conventional assumptions and therefore not surprising. Later arrivals also have had the advantage of being able to rely on burgeoning Vietnamese American communities and enclaves that have become prominent in recent years. In particular, the largest of these “Little Saigons” is in Orange County, California and is home to approximately 143,000 Vietnamese. As sociologists have described, these enclaves provide co-ethnics with not just material resources in the form of information and social services, but also psychological support and comfort as recent arrivals adjust to life in a new culture and society.


205

Demographic data also tends to show that as the Vietnamese American population continues to achieve socioeconomic mobility and greater structural integration into mainstream American society, they are increasingly dispersing geographically. Although the actual numbers of Vietnamese residents in the top eight metropolitan areas continues to increase, the proportion of the entire Vietnamese American population contained in most of these areas has declined, with notable exceptions being the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett area (whose proportion of all Vietnamese Americans increased from 2.1% to 3.0% from 1990 to 2000) and Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV area (whose proportion stayed constant from 1990 to 2000 at 3.9%). Overall, the Vietnamese American population has undergone several significant transformations in their journey from refugees of a destructive war, to one of the newest arrivals onto the American racial/ethnic landscape, to gradual assimilation and integration into the American mainstream. At the same time, important differences continue to distinguish the Vietnamese American community as they relate to cohort of arrival and generation status. In fact, it is this last distinction, the U.S.-raised (1.5 generation or higher) versus the foreign-raised (first generation immigrants) that is continually highlighted in subsequent analyses in this research. Socioeconomic Assimilation The first series of structural assimilation outcome we examined was conventional measures of socioeconomic attainment, including income, high skill occupation, and Duncan’s SEI score. The results suggested that among foreign-raised Asian American groups, Asian Indians clearly had the highest socioeconomic attainment levels while conversely and as expected, Vietnamese had the lowest levels, a reflection of the disadvantages associated with their refugee status. However, the descriptive results also showed that U.S.-raised Vietnamese Americans seemed to fare better than their foreign-raised counterparts relative to Whites and to other Asian ethnic groups. This suggests that the conventional assimilationist expectations are likely to be fulfilled as younger and more acculturated Vietnamese escape the disadvantages associated with their parents and instead, translate their

206


human capital achievements into meaningful socioeconomic attainment. The regression results on factors affecting income, high skill occupation, and Duncan’s SEI score continue to paint a relatively positive picture not just for U.S.-raised Vietnamese but also their foreign-raised counterparts as well. In fact, certain results suggest that foreign-raised Vietnamese experience more advantageous returns from education and other human capital characteristics than what we would normally hypothesize. In other words, in terms of factors that are associated with personal income, having a high skill occupation, and Duncan’s SEI score, the disadvantages associated with their refugee status and experiences do not seem as severe as what we would normally expect. Although Census data cannot accurate pinpoint the exact reasons for this finding, we might speculate that it may be a testament to the benefits of extended family networks and burgeoning Vietnamese communities and enclaves. That is, foreign-raised Vietnamese may have adopted strategies to compensate for their human capital disadvantages by relying more on pooled family and community resources. This may help to explain why many foreign-raised Vietnamese have been able to overcome their initial deficiencies and attain respectable levels of socioeconomic assimilation. Regression results on these three socioeconomic assimilation outcomes for U.S.-raised Vietnamese Americans also illustrate that similar to their foreign-raised counterparts, this younger cohort of Vietnamese Americans does not seem to experience much disadvantage and in fact, seems to have achieved virtual parity with not only other Asian American ethnic groups but in many respects, with non-Hispanic Whites as well. This is also particularly true for Vietnamese who have a college degree or a high skill occupation -- minimum thresholds of socioeconomic mobility. For these Vietnamese Americans, they seem to experience no disadvantage on other assimilation outcomes such as income at all and in many cases, outperform other Asians and Whites in those categories. In looking at these regression results for not just Vietnamese Americans but Asian Americans in general, in terms of socioeconomic assimilation, the general pattern we observe is that the only significant


207

and consistent difference between the foreign- and U.S.-raised is that the U.S.-raised seem to enjoy some initial advantages relative to the foreign-raised as shown in the income, high skill occupation, and SEI score models. However, the results for specific factors that affect each of these outcomes indicate that the foreign-raised apparently derive more benefit from possessing certain characteristics more than the U.S.-raised. That suggests that many foreign-raised are able to close the gap to the U.S.-raised rather quickly and/or there is more socioeconomic competition among U.S.-raised Asian Americans and hence, they experience slightly smaller gains when trying to capitalize on their human capital. In general, the analyses on socioeconomic assimilation point out that there does not seem to be major differences between Asian American ethnic groups, between men and women, or between the U.S.- and foreign-raised. Rather, the results tend to show that there is a notable level of parity in terms of income, high skill occupation, and SEI score. This becomes most noticeable when we consider the initial disadvantages that many foreign-raised Vietnamese possess due to their status and experiences as refugees. The data indicate that many of them have been able to overcome these initial deficiencies and have attained relative parity with other Asian Americans. Further, U.S.raised Vietnamese seem to experience little if any lingering effects of their parents’ initial disadvantages as well and have largely and impressively matched the socioeconomic attainment of their Asian American peers. We might attribute these impressive socioeconomic gains in terms of the strength of family and community ties, as other sociologists have described. That is, out of necessity and/or tradition, Vietnamese refugees utilized the most reliable resources available to them -- family, relatives, and community members in order to adjust to life and begin building the foundations for socioeconomic mobility and structural assimilation. Centuries of perseverance, hard work, and ability to adapt to ever-changing external circumstances helped them to overcome many, although not all, challenges in their quest to rebuild their lives. In these measures of assimilation, Vietnamese have made remarkable gains.

208


Occupational Assimilation: Entrepreneurship The second major category of structural assimilation this research examined was occupational assimilation in the form of entrepreneurship or more specifically, the dynamics relating to small business ownership among Asian Americans. In the past, sociologists have consistently suggested that small business ownership was a form of employment that was mainly limited to first generation immigrants who resorted to small business ownership as a means to insulate themselves from labor market disadvantages. As such, entrepreneurship was almost always an indicator of lower levels of structural assimilation since rates of self-employment consistently declined with the second generation who, due to their greater acculturation and human capital acquisition patterns in the U.S., did not experience the same types of labor market disadvantage that their parents experienced. In fact, the extant research has documented how the post-1965 immigrants have made self-employment a cornerstone in the proliferation and development of Asian ethnic enclaves around the country and that these Asian small businesses have fundamentally transformed urban areas in many metropolitan areas in the last few decades. At the same time, research is starting to emerge to suggest that self-employment among Asian Americans is no longer primarily limited to first generation immigrants seeking to insulate themselves from discrimination that they may experience in the primary labor market. Instead, many Asian Americans seem to be choosing to enter self-employment and have accumulated capital (human, social, and financial) in order to do so. Their businesses are no longer limited to restaurants, groceries, or retail stores (so called “enclave-associated” industries). Instead, many of these small businesses involve professional activities such as doctors’ offices, legal services, financial consultation, real estate, etc. In this context, our consideration of entrepreneurship needs to incorporate mechanisms to identify and incorporate these distinctions in the analysis. With that in mind, this particular chapter closely examined the factors associated with small business ownership along


209

four roughly distinct but interrelated categories: labor market discrimination, ethnic resources, class resources, and structural opportunities (all of which are explained in more detail in Chapter Four). These explanatory categories allow us to better recognize and analyze the factors associated with owning a small business to determine whether owning one’s own business represents lower or higher levels of structural assimilation and again, how this differs between the five major Asian American ethnic groups, between men and women, and between the foreign- versus U.S.-raised. The various regression results indeed confirm that there are significant differences between Asian American self-employment that is concentrated in enclave-associated industries versus that in professional services industries. Further, these differences are consistent across genders and nativity status. The regression results also suggest that structural opportunities (in the form of specific industries that offer easy entry but also carry high risks of failure, along with being located in either the Los Angeles, San Francisco, or New York metropolitan areas) seem to be most strongly associated with the likelihood of being self-employed for all five Asian ethnic groups in the analysis, although class resources (college degree, high skill occupation, U.S. citizen, etc.) are also prominent in many cases as well. This particular finding is again consistent across Asian groups, genders, and nativities. However, the richest source of data seems to be descriptive characteristics of self-employment. They clearly illustrate that as expected, all five foreign-raised Asian American ethnic groups had higher self-employment rates than their U.S.-raised counterparts. Just as important, foreign-raised small business owners were more likely to have a business in an “enclave-associated” industry (either garment, grocery/restaurant, personal services, or retail, all of which are closely identified with small businesses in ethnic enclave economies) whereas U.S.-raised small business owners were much more likely to have a business involving a professional occupation. At the same time, there were important differences between Asian groups. Specifically, the descriptive statistics show that Vietnamese Americans display several unique patterns that distinguish them from other Asian Americans when it comes to self-employment rates.

210


First, excluding Filipinos (whose self-employment rate is only 6.0), Vietnamese are the only foreign-raised group whose rate increased from 1990 to 2000, although they still trail Koreans by 16 percentage points (and trail Whites as well). Second, Vietnamese exhibited the largest increase among U.S.-raised Asian groups from 1990 to 2000, although again, they still trail Koreans in addition to Asian Indians and Chinese. But perhaps most important, both foreign- and U.S.-raised Vietnamese have some of the highest proportions of self-employment concentrated in enclave-associated industries and the lowest proportions in professional industries (Vietnamese have the largest discrepancies by far among U.S.-raised Asian groups). Therefore, while the actual rates of self-employment among foreign- and U.S.-raised Vietnamese are still relatively low, those who are self-employed are much more likely to be concentrated in enclaveassociated industries (a clear indication of lower structural assimilation) and that their rates of being self-employed are rising when rates for virtually all other Asian groups are declining. Most likely, this pattern of entrepreneurial concentration in enclave-associated industries reflects the fact that while many Vietnamese have attained much socioeconomic mobility, Vietnamese ethnic enclaves in general are still relatively new compared to other Asian ethnic enclaves around the country. As such, these Little Saigons have not yet achieved economic maturity in the same way that other enclaves have, as many sociologists have described. The passage of time will likely rectify that situation and in the meantime, self-employed Vietnamese are slowly cultivating the capital, resources, and/or experience necessary to expand the nature of their enclaves. In general, these patterns of self-employment among Vietnamese begin to highlight that there is a lot of diversity within the Vietnamese American population between those who seem to have assimilated rather thoroughly versus others who still display characteristics of lower levels of structural integration. This pattern emerged in our previous discussion on the specific historical, demographic, and socioeconomic characteristics within the Vietnamese population and as we’ll see, continues to play an important role in their structural assimilation process in the next two categories of outcomes.


211

Spatial Assimilation and Residential Quality of Life The third category of structural assimilation in this research is spatial assimilation and residential quality of life. These outcomes are operationalized in Chapter Five using three measures. First are indices of segregation from and exposure to non-Hispanic Whites. Second are the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of Asian Americans in neighborhoods (tract level) of different co-ethnic concentrations (five, ten, and twenty-five percent). The third measure is factors that affect both the likelihood of owning a home and housing value. These measures were analyzed using Census data (Summary Tape Files and the five-percent PUMS) for California only, since California contains the largest population of Asian Americans in the U.S. by far and because the state has been at the forefront of a very interesting demographic, socioeconomic, and cultural phenomenon in recent years. Specifically, sociologists have historically hypothesized that being spatial isolated and residentially segregated from non-Hispanic Whites almost always is equated with disadvantage since it usually involves being denied physical access to better quality homes, social and medical services, school districts, safer neighborhoods, and various other amenities that are normally associated with residential integration (perhaps more specifically, suburbanization). Scholars have convincingly shown that the inequalities associated with residential segregation are most pronounced for Blacks, with Asians and Hispanics/Latinos being generally less negatively affected. Evidence also documents that Asian immigrants have traditionally settled in urban ethnic enclaves as an intermediate destination while they adjust and acculturate into mainstream American society. In the process, these Asian immigrants have tolerated the disadvantages normally linked with being residentially segregated from Whites (usually in the form of smaller housing units, more densely concentrated neighborhoods, etc.) in return for other advantages that are associated with interaction with co-ethnic neighbors, family and relatives, and culturally-specific organizations and social services. Eventually, after achieving some degree of assimilation, these Asian immigrants would move out of these enclaves and integrate into more racially mixed neighborhoods, perhaps after one generation or so.

212


However, in recent years, events in California have challenged this traditional “linear” method of spatial assimilation. Specifically, a large proportion of recent Asian immigrants (along with burgeoning U.S.born Asian American cohorts) have arrived in the U.S. with professional backgrounds and notable levels of socioeconomic and financial resources already at their disposal. As such, they are no longer willing to delay having access to residential amenities usually associated with integrated suburban neighborhoods. Rather, they have been bypassing co-ethnic enclaves and capitalizing on their human and financial capital by moving directly into suburbs. Further, as more of them follow this new resettlement pattern, suburban ethnic enclaves have emerged that combine the benefits of both worlds -- the amenities and quality of life normally associated with integrated suburban areas along with the continuing presence of co-ethnic neighbors, businesses, and community institutions. As such, this development has challenged the fundamental association between residential segregation and socioeconomic inequality, at least for these Asian Americans in California. Therefore, the question becomes, to what extent is co-ethnic concentration and spatial isolation from Whites still indicative of disadvantage and how do these patterns differ between Asian American ethnic groups to affect the overall quality of residential life for them in California? To analyze these questions, this research first calculated indices of dissimilarity and exposure to Whites for the five major Asian ethnic groups in the top nine metropolitan areas that contained the largest Asian American populations in California. The results showed that Vietnamese are clearly the most residentially segregated Asian ethnic group in California by far. Vietnamese had indices of segregation above 60 (the threshold for being considered “highly segregated”) in six of the nine metro areas and that their average index of dissimilarity for the nine metro areas was 61.22, significantly higher than Filipinos, who had the next highest average at 53.51. Interestingly, Vietnamese Americans had very high indices of dissimilarity in areas where they were the largest Asian ethnic group, the smallest, and in the middle. In other words, their population size and proportion of the overall Asian


213

population did not seem to matter at all -- they were highly residentially segregated in any of those situations. Conventional sociological research would hypothesize that increasing levels of co-ethnic concentration would be positively correlated with lower levels of socioeconomic attainment (i.e., more segregation equals more disadvantage). However, in examining the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of neighborhoods by level of co-ethnic concentration and Asian ethnic group, the results reveal that there does not seem to be a consistent pattern across the five Asian groups when it comes to increasingly concentrated ethnic neighborhoods. That is, there is little evidence to suggest that there is a strong link between increasing levels of co-ethnic concentration and lower socioeconomic attainment or disadvantage among Asian Americans in California, including Vietnamese and despite their disproportionately high levels of residential segregation. This lends support to the notion that these kinds of “suburban Chinatowns” are indeed economically vibrant and offer high levels of residential quality even though they contain very high concentrations of co-ethnics. Are these patterns also applicable to more specific indicators of residential quality of life, such as homeownership and housing values? To answer this question, the research then used tobit regression analysis to examine factors that affect the likelihood of owning a home and its housing value. While interpreting tobit regression coefficients is inherently difficult, this research used a technique to isolate the effects of independent variables on housing values. In general, the results show that conventional assimilationist expectations are confirmed -that certain measures of human capital and socioeconomic attainment are positively correlated with housing values. This is generally true across all five Asian American ethnic groups in the model and consistent with the patterns exhibited by Whites as a comparison group. The results for Vietnamese Americans specifically showed that Vietnamese who have certain measures of socioeconomic attainment have very little difficulties translating their achievements into housing values and exhibit little, if any disadvantage in this regard. In fact, calculations actually suggest that middle-SES and affluent Vietnamese have predicted housing values that are much higher than those for Whites in the same class categories. At the same time, those Vietnamese who still have human capital deficiencies (not being

214


proficient in English, less than a college degree, etc.) continue to experience difficulties in attaining quality housing, as measured by housing values. Even though most Vietnamese do not exhibit any type of disadvantage or inequality when it comes to attaining a high level of residential quality of life, why is it that they are so spatially concentrated compared to other Asian ethnic groups? We might speculate that there are both internal and external factors that may be at work here. On the one hand, as we mentioned earlier, as one of the newest groups in the American racial/ethnic landscape, Vietnamese are still adapting and finding their “proper place” in many communities and as such, may prefer the comfort of living among co-ethnics and utilizing the resources that family, relatives, and community members share therein. At the same, as the products of the unpopular Viet Nam War, many Americans may be less than thrilled to have Vietnamese as their neighbors and anecdotal evidence has shown that this kind of exclusionary sentiment has been common. Sociologists also know that after the initial impact of these factors wear off, socio-cultural inertia may reinforce and perpetuate these set patterns as both sides justify and accept it as “that’s the way it is.” Vietnamese in California exhibit a wide range of socioeconomic characteristics and that is reflected in both their rates of homeownership and the factors that affect the housing values of homeowners. Once again the pattern is confirmed -- those who are doing well enjoy the same types of returns on their socioeconomic capital while those who are struggling continue to pay a large price relative to both their more affluent Vietnamese counterparts and other Asian Americans. Marital Assimilation The final measure of structural assimilation this research examined was martial assimilation and more specifically, rates and factors associated with having an endogamous, pan-Asian (Asian of a different ethnicity), or White spouse. We left this particular measure for last because according to many sociologists, intermarriage represents the final


215

breakdown of social distance between members of different races/ethnicities and therefore the ultimate form of assimilation. Chapter Six measured marital assimilation using the Census 2000 fivepercent PUMS data and concentrated on only U.S.-raised Asian Americans (1.5 generation or higher), rather than including first generation immigrants, many of whom may have arrived in the U.S. already married (the foreign-raised). History notes that the early part of Asian American history was characterized by systematic attempts to exclude the arrival of Asians into the U.S., and barring that, efforts to severely restrict the rights and activities of Asians already in the U.S. These restrictions pertained to education, housing, employment, and marriage, to name just a few. One of the main purposes of these exclusionary measures was to prevent or at least strongly discourage Asians from permanently resettling in the U.S. and establishing roots as American citizens. For the most part, these measures were successful in mitigating the sustained development of any sizable Asian American community. That is, until the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act came along. The Act completely overhauled the country’s restrictive immigration laws and resulted in the influx of approximately seven million immigrants from Asian since 1971. This unprecedented flood of Asian immigrants set off several significant demographic, economic, and cultural shifts within the nascent Asian American population, including vastly expanding the marriage pool for Asians and non-Asians alike. Combined with the 1967 Supreme Court ruling that declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional and the liberalization of social attitudes on interracial relationships, the phenomenon of outmarriage became a prominent feature of the assimilation process among Asian Americans. At the same time, lingering effects of past exclusion and discrimination, persistent prejudices and stereotypes, and distorted media images all influenced individual-level decisions regarding marriage partners among Asian Americans. As such, if intermarriage is conventionally seen as the ultimate form of assimilation, how do different Asian American ethnic groups compare with each other on this measure and what factors affect the choice of one’s spouse for these groups?

216


In analyzing these questions, the analysis began by describing rates of marriage by spouse’s race/ethnicity and gender. The results showed that there were clear ethnic and gender differences. First, Asian American women of all five Asian ethnicities were much more likely to outmarry than were men. Second, across genders, Koreans were the most likely to have a White spouse, Chinese were the most likely to have a pan-Asian spouse, Asian Indians the most likely to have a Black spouse, Filipinos to have a Hispanic/Latino spouse, and Vietnamese were the most likely to have an endogamous spouse. Further, the rates of outmarriage for the latest cohort of Vietnamese Americans, the U.S.born, showed that they were even more likely to have an endogamous spouse than the 1.5 generation, a finding that was primarily limited to just the Vietnamese. Although the sample size is too small to make a definitive judgment, this finding is nonetheless consistent with other findings through the research which suggest that some Vietnamese, net of independent factors, are still not as structurally assimilated as other Asian Americans with similar characteristics. Regression analyses on factors affecting the race/ethnicity of one’s spouse generally confirm that those Asian Americans (men and women and rather consistently across the five Asian ethnic groups) who have a White spouse tend to be younger, more educated, more affluent, and have higher occupational attainment than those who have endogamous spouses. These findings are consistent with conventional assimilationist expectations. At the same time, the regression results also suggest that contrary to conventional hypotheses, being U.S.-born has a stronger effect for having a pan-Asian spouse than for having a White spouse. This may mean that either U.S.-born Asian Americans are more likely to have a pan-Asian spouse net of independent factors, or that an overwhelming proportion of Asian Americans who have a pan-Asian spouse are U.S.-born, a much higher proportion than among those with a White spouse. This finding seems to contradict traditional assimilationist expectations. At the same time, the regression results also show that age has a positive effect on having a pan-Asian spouse compared to having a White spouse. In other words, for both men and women, older US.raised Asian Americans are more likely to be married to a pan-Asian


217

while their younger counterparts are more likely to be married to a White spouse, a finding that supports the traditional assimilationist view. If anything, these conflicting findings illustrate that the entire landscape of marital assimilation among Asian Americans is quite complex and requires more detailed examination to completely understand the multidimensional dynamics of this process. However, the exception to this pattern regarding age once again lies with the Vietnamese -- age has a negative effect on having a pan-Asian versus White spouse for Vietnamese, meaning that younger Vietnamese are more likely to have a pan-Asian spouse than a White one, controlling for other factors. We might speculate that one of the reasons for the high endogamous rates among U.S.-raised Vietnamese is that despite the fact that many have been largely acculturated into mainstream American society, the influence of traditional Vietnamese culture and perhaps more specifically, the influence of their parents, remains quite strong. That is, since the Vietnamese population is still establishing itself as a fixture in the American racial/ethnic landscape, they are likely to have a stronger sense of ethnic solidarity. As we discussed earlier, this pattern may affect why many Vietnamese have been able to achieve socioeconomic mobility relatively quickly and perhaps why Vietnamese continue to remain spatially isolated. In the case of marriage decisions, it is certainly plausible that Vietnamese young adults in the process of choosing a mate can still be subjected to plenty of parental influence (some may even say pressure) to marry endogamously as a way to maintain this high level of ethnic solidarity within the Vietnamese American community. We have already mentioned that Vietnamese have the lowest outmarriage rates among U.S.-raised Asian ethnic groups. We now see evidence that suggests that while other young Asian Americans are more likely to marry Whites, young Vietnamese are more inclined to marry pan-Asian spouses. Do pan-Asian marriages represent a form of high structural assimilation, low, or somewhere in the middle? Perhaps pan-Asian marriages are the first signs among the newest cohort of Vietnamese Americans that they are beginning to move beyond the traditional influences that have resulted in such high endogamous rates up to this point -- an intermediate step toward higher rates of marriage with Whites. As such, the evidence suggests that pan-Asian marriages

218


seem to occupy a middle ground between endogamous and White intermarriages and are even becoming more common in recent years. Nonetheless, our overall analysis of marital assimilation seems to show that Vietnamese continue to display unique characteristics that lead us to see them as less assimilated (in this case, rates and factors associated with intermarriage) than other Asian Americans, after accounting for other factors. WHERE DO VIETNAMESE FIT INTO AMERICAN SOCIETY? We now return to the fundamental research questions that we raised in the Introduction chapter -- how are Vietnamese Americans different from other Asian American ethnic groups in terms of structural assimilation, what accounts for these unique characteristics, and how important are these differences in affecting how Vietnamese Americans assimilate into the American mainstream? The short answer to the first part of the questions is, it depends on which Vietnamese Americans we’re talking about. For the majority of Vietnamese Americans (U.S.raised and even many foreign-raised), there is very little difference between them and other Asian Americans in terms of socioeconomic attainment. These Vietnamese Americans have been largely successful in escaping the disadvantages associated with their (or their parents’) refugee or immigration experiences and characteristics and have achieved in many ways rather remarkable mobility in a relatively short amount of time. At the same time, there is still a small minority of Vietnamese Americans for whom socioeconomic attainment is more of a struggle as they are still suffering the legacies of their refugee experiences and comparative lack of human capital. In other measures of structural assimilation attainment, we also see that for the most part, Vietnamese Americans exhibit very little disadvantages, although there are a few exceptions that give reason to pause. For example, those Vietnamese who are self-employed (less than 10% of all Vietnamese) are still predominantly located in lowwage service sectors whereas other self-employed Asian Americans are moving into more professional-type sectors. Further, Vietnamese exhibit very high residential segregation rates in California (much


219

higher than any other major Asian ethnic group), although this high degree of spatial isolation seems to have little negative impact on the overall residential quality of life for middle-class and affluent Vietnamese (but once again, a small minority of Vietnamese who have not yet obtained socioeconomic success exhibit more examples of disadvantage). Measures of marital assimilation (specifically rates of intermarriage with Whites) are where Vietnamese seem to show the most discrepancies between them and other Asian Americans and where they exhibit lower levels of structural assimilation most clearly. Therefore, when it comes to the “big structural assimilation picture,” this research tends to show that socioeconomically, there are very few differences between Vietnamese and other Asian Americans but there are enough disparities among specific subgroups within the Vietnamese population to warrant closer investigation. What accounts for these differences? They mainly relate to many Vietnamese’s status as refugees and involuntary immigrants. Having little other choice (except certain oppression and even death) but to leave their homelands, many Vietnamese did not possess the same levels of human capital and therefore were not as self-selective as other conventional Asian immigrants. Many Vietnamese overcame these initial disadvantages but many others still have not and it is these Vietnamese that exhibit the largest disparities in terms of structural assimilation. In the Introduction chapter, we mentioned that there are separate efforts underway by different sociologists to analyze macro-structural components of assimilation -- how ecological shifts in the economic, political, social, and demographic structure frame and ultimately affect the assimilation process from the perspective of both the assimilator and assimilatee. These innovative efforts also tie in with more established theories of the role of social institutions in reinforcing and perpetuating racial stratification, how ethnic competition breeds intergroup hostility and discrimination, and how population shifts impact community dynamics. With this in mind, we might speculate that the situation of Vietnamese American assimilation can be seen as a clear example of these processes in action. That is, might hypothesize that since the political factors surrounding the initial arrival of Vietnamese refugees were so volatile that so was the reception that they encountered. History also shows us that at the time of their arrival in 1975, the U.S. economy was

220


struggling and as a result, there was a higher level of economic competition, which of course leads to ethic competition, into which Vietnamese were then placed. In these circumstances, scholars have also documented how ethnic solidarity can emerge or be strengthened during times of ethnic competition. Therefore, we might speculate that this occurred with the Vietnamese as well as they consolidated what resources they had, individually, familial, and community-wide and focused their efforts on overcoming these challenges that they faced. Further, changes in government policies and programs also could have been a focal point for the formation of Vietnamese solidarity in these early years of their resettlement. Anecdotal evidence suggests that it was common for more established arrivals to assist new arrivals by providing information on how to obtain maximum benefits from different governmental and community-based agencies in their resettlement process. This type of information-sharing and co-ethnic assistance among immigrants in nothing new of course and the result once again was facilitating a greater sense of ethnic community. We might also see these actions on the part of the Vietnamese as further examples of how macrostructural policies intersect with individual- and community-level dynamics to affect a sense of ethnic community and processes of social integration. Regarding government policy, the Vietnamese also defied initial attempts to geographically disperse them throughout the U.S. and instead began clustering inside a few metropolitan areas, they inevitably encountered suspicion and hostility as they displaced other more established racial minority groups. Once again, this situation of ethnic competition and rapid demographic shifts may have facilitated even more ethnic solidarity among the Vietnamese. In this case, they remained spatially concentrated (through their own choice or otherwise) and in the process, retained their high levels of ethnic solidarity. In many ways, the case of structural assimilation among Vietnamese can be seen as an example of multiple and multi-level factors working simultaneously to produce a series of circumstance and events that eventually allowed the Vietnamese to coalesce as an ethnic community and in the process, to consolidate what resources they had


221

in order to overcome numerous barriers in their way on the path toward socioeconomic mobility and structural assimilation. For many Vietnamese, their deficiencies in regard to initial levels of human and social capital did pose a significant barrier to assimilation. But as Vietnamese have shown throughout their history, they are very adept at persevering through adversity and adapting to every-changing circumstances and new environments. As a result, many left behind the remnants of misfortune and hardship and have worked individually and collectively to forge new levels of prosperity for themselves and their children. At the same time, they have steadfastly held onto the importance of community and ethnic solidarity in the process of carefully integrating into the American mainstream. In other words, from the ashes of sorrow and uncertainty, Vietnamese have woven together a pattern of achievement and mobility combined with tradition and cohesion and have taken their place in the ever-evolving American mainstream. Contact, competition, accommodation, and then assimilation? As the old cliché goes, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”


Appendix Appendix: 2000 Census PUMS Industry Categories Category Garment

(Code) Industry (149) Textile and fabric finishing and coating mills (167) Knitting mills (168) Cut and sew apparel manufacturing (169) Apparel accessories and other apparel manufacturing (177) Footwear manufacturing (439) Apparel, fabrics, and notions wholesalers (889) Footwear and leather goods repair (907) Dry cleaning and laundry services

Grocery/Restaurant

(119) Retail bakeries (128) Seafood and other miscellaneous foods (447) Groceries and related product wholesalers (456) Alcoholic beverage wholesalers (497) Grocery stores (498) Specialty food stores (499) Beer, wine, and liquor stores (868) Restaurants and other food services (869) Drinking places, alcoholic beverages

Retail

(479) Radio, TV, and computer stores (488) Hardware stores (508) Health and personal care, except drug stores (509) Gasoline stations (517) Clothing and accessories, except shoe stores (518) Shoe stores (519) Jewelry, luggage, and leather goods stores (527) Sporting goods, camera, and hobby and toy stores

223

224

Appendix (528) Sewing, needlework and piece goods stores (529) Music stores (537) Book stores and news dealers (539) Miscellaneous general merchandise stores (547) Retail florists (548) Office supplies and stationary stores (549) Used merchandise stores (557) Gift, novelty, and souvenir shops (558) Miscellaneous retail stores (569) Other direct selling establishments

Personal Services

(619) Taxi and limousine service (769) Services to buildings and dwellings (777) Landscaping services (866) Traveler accommodation (888) Personal and household goods repair and maintenance (897) Barber shops (898) Beauty salons (899) Nail salons and other personal care services (909) Other personal services (929) Private households

Professional Services

(687) Banking and related activities (688) Savings institutions, including credit unions (689) Non-depository credit and related activities (697) Securities, commodities, funds, trusts, and other financial investments (699) Insurance carriers and related activities (707) Real estate (719) Commercial, industrial, and other intangible assets rental and leasing

Appendix

225 (727) Legal services (728) Accounting, tax preparation, bookkeeping and payroll services (729) Architectural, engineering, and related services (737) Specialized design services (738) Computer systems design and services (739) Management, scientific and technical consulting services (746) Scientific research and development services (747) Advertising and related services (748) Veterinary services (749) Other professional, scientific and technical services (757) Management of companies and enterprises (758) Employment services (759) Business support services (767) Travel arrangements and reservation services (768) Investigation and security services (788) Business, technical, and trade schools and training (789) Other schools, instruction, and educational services (797) Offices of physicians (798) Offices of dentists (799) Office of chiropractors (807) Offices of optometrists (808) Offices of other health practitioners (809) Outpatient care centers (817) Home health care services (818) Other health care services


References Ablemann, Nancy, and John Lie. 1995. Blue Dreams: Korean Americans and the L.A. Riots. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Alba, Richard. 1990. Ethnic Identity: The Transformation of White America. New Haven: Yale University Press. Alba, Richard D., John R. Logan, and Brian J. Stults. 2000. “The Changing Neighborhood Contexts of the Immigrant Metropolis.” Social Forces 79:587-621. Alba, Richard, and John Logan. 1991. “Variations on Two Themes: Racial and Ethnic Patterns in the Attainment of Suburban Residence.” Demography 28:431-453. —. 1993. “Minority Proximity to Whites in Suburbs: An Individual-Level Analysis of Segregation.” American Journal of Sociology 98:1388-1427. Alba, Richard, John Logan, and Kyle Crowder. 1997. “White Ethnic Neighborhoods and Assimilation: The Greater New York Region, 19801990.” Social Forces 75:883-912. Alba, Richard, John R. Logan, Brian J. Stults, Gilbert Marzan, and Wenquan Zhang. 1999. “Immigrant Groups in the Suburbs: A Reexamination of Suburbanization and Spatial Assimilation.” American Sociological Review 64:446-460. Alba, Richard, and Victor Nee. 1999. “Rethinking Assimilation Theory for a New Era of Immigration.” in The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience, edited by Charles Hirschman, Philip Kasinitz, and Josh DeWind. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. —. 2003. Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Aldrich, Howard, and Roger Waldinger. 1990. “Ethnicity and Entrepreneurship.” Annual Review of Sociology 16:111-135. Amott, Teresa, and Julie Matthaei. 1991. Race, Gender and Work: A Multicultural Economic History of Women in the United States. Boston: South End Press. Bankston, Carl L., and Min Zhou. 1995. “Religious Participation, Ethnic Identification, and the Adaptation of Vietnamese Adolescents in an Immigrant Community.” Sociological Quarterly 36:523-534. Barkan, Elliot A. 1995. “Race, Religion, and Nationality in American Society: A Model of Ethnicity -- from Contact to Assimilation.” Journal of American Ethnic History 14:38-101. Barringer, Herbert, Robert W. Gardner, and Michael J. Levin. 1995. Asians and Pacific Islanders in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Barringer, Herbert, David T. Takeuchi, and Peter Xenos. 1990. “Education, Occupational Prestige, and Income of Asian Americans.” Sociology of Education 63:27-43.

227

228

References

Bates, Timothy. 1994. “Social Resources Generated by Group Support Networks May Not be Beneficial to Asian Immigrant-Owned Small Businesses.” Social Forces 72:671-689. Bates, Timothy, and Constance R. Dunham. 1992. “Facilitating Upward Mobility Through Small Business Ownership.” in Urban Labor Markets and Job Opportunity, edited by George E. Peterson and Wayne Vroman. Washington DC: Urban Institute Press. —. 1993. “Asian-American Success in Self-Employment.” Economic Development Quarterly 7:199-214. Bielby, William T., and Denise D. Bielby. 1999. “Organizational Mediation of Project-Based Labor Markets: Talent Agencies and the Careers of Screenwriters.” American Sociological Review 64:64-85. Blalock, Herbert M. 1967. Toward a Theory of Minority-Group Relations. New York: John Wiley, Inc. Blau, Peter, Terry Blum, and Joseph Schwartz. 1982. “Heterogeneity and Intermarriage.” American Sociological Review 47:45-62. Blau, Peter, and Otis Duncan. 1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity. New York: Free Press. Blauner, Robert. 1972. Racial Oppression in America. New York: Harper & Row. Bobo, Lawrence, Melvin Oliver, James H. Johnson Jr., and Abel Valenzuela. 2000. Prismatic Metropolis: Inequality in Los Angeles. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Bogardus, Emory. 1967. A Forty Year Racial Distance Study. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. Bonacich, Edna. 1972. “A Theory of Ethnic Antagonism: The Split Labor Market.” American Sociological Review 37:547-559. —. 1973. “A Theory of Middleman Minorities.” American Sociological Review 38:690-711. —. 1984. “U.S. Capitalist Development: A Background to Asian Immigration.” in Labor Migration Under Capitalism, edited by Lucie Cheng and Edna Bonacich. Berkeley: University of California Press. —. 1989. “Inequality in America: The Failure of the American System for People of Color.” Sociological Spectrum 9:77-101. Bonacich, Edna, and John Modell. 1980. The Economic Basis of Ethnic Solidarity: Small Business in the Japanese American Community. Berkeley: University of California Press. Borjas, George. 1985. “Assimilation, Changes in Cohort Quality, and the Earnings of Immigrants.” Journal of Labor Economics 3:463-489. —. 1986. “The Self-Employment Experience of Immigrants.” Journal of Human Resources 21:485-507. —. 1995. “Assimilation and Changes in Cohort Quality Revisited: What Happened to Immigrant Earnings in the 1980s?” Journal of Labor Economics 13:201-245.

References

229

—. 1999. Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Boyd, Robert. 1990. “Black and Asian Self-Employment in Large Metropolitan Areas: A Comparative Analysis.” Social Problems 37:258-274. —. 1991. “Inequality in the Earnings of Self-Employed African and Asian Americans.” Sociological Perspectives 34:258-274. Browne, Irene. (Ed.). 1999. Latinas and African American Women at Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Butler, John. 1991. Entrepreneurship and Self-Help Among Black Americans: A Reconsideration of Race and Economics. Albany: State University of New York Press. Cabezas, Amado. 1990. “Income Differentials Between Asian Americans and White Americans in California, 1980.” in Income and Status Differences Between Minority and White Americans, edited by Sucheng Chang. Lewiston: Mellon Press. Caplan, Nathan, John K. Whitmore, and Marcella H. Choy. 1989. The Boat People and Achievement in America: A Study of Family Life, Hard Work, and Cultural Values. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Caputo, Philip. 1996. A Rumor of War. New York: Owlet Books. Census Bureau, U.S. 2001. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2001 (121th Edition). Washington D.C.: United States Department of Commerce. Chan, Sucheng. 1991. Asian Americans: An Interpretive History. Boston: Twayne Publishers. Chang, Gordon. 2001. Asian Americans and Politics: Perspectives, Experiences, Prospects. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. Charles, Camille Zubrinsky. 2001. “Socioeconomic Status and Segregation: African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians in Los Angeles.” in Problem of the Century: Racial Stratification in the United States, edited by Elijah Anderson and Douglas Massey. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. —. 2003. “The Dynamics of Racial Residential Segregation.” Annual Review of Sociology 29:167-207. Cheng, Lucie, and Yen Le Espiritu. 1989. “Korean Businesses in Black and Hispanic Neighborhoods: A Study of Inter-Group Relations.” Sociological Perspectives 35:521-534. Cheng, Lucie, and Philip Q. Yang. 1996. “Asians: The ‘Model Minority’ Deconstructed.” in Ethnic Los Angeles, edited by Roger Waldinger and Mehdi Bozorgmehr. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Chiswick, Barry R., and Teresa A. Sullivan. 1995. “The New Immigrants.” in State of the Union: America in the 1990s, edited by Reynolds Farley. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

230

References

Chow, Esther Ngan-Ling. 1994. “Asian American Women at Work.” in Women of Color in U.S. Society, edited by Maxine Baca Zinn and Bonnie Dill Thornton. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Chung, Tom L. 1995. “Asian Americans in Enclaves -- They Are Not One Community: New Modes of Asian American Settlement.” Asian American Policy Review 5:78-95. Danico, May Yu. 2004. “The Formation of Post-Suburban Communities: Koreatown and Little Saigon, Orange County.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 24:15-45. Do, Hien Duc. 1999. The Vietnamese Americans. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Edmondson, Barry, and Jeffrey Passel. 1999. “How Immigration and Intermarriage Affect the Racial and Ethnic Composition of the U.S. Population.” in Immigration and Opportunity: Race, Ethnicity, and Employment in the United States, edited by Frank D. Bean and Stephanie Bell-Rose. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. England, Paula, and George Farkas. 1986. Households, Employment and Gender: A Social, Economic and Demographic View. New York: Aldine. Espenshade, Thomas, and Gregory A. Huber. 1999. “Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants and the Shrinking Welfare State.” in The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience, edited by Charles Hirschman, Philip Kasinitz, and Josh DeWind. New York: Russel Sage Foundation. Espiritu, Yen Le. 1992. Asian American Panethnicity: Bridging Institutions and Identities. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Evans, M.D.R. 1989. “Immigrant Entrepreneurship: Effects of Ethnic Market Size and Isolated Labor Pool.” American Sociological Review 54:950-962. Farley, Reynolds, and William Frey. 1994. “Changes in the Segregation of Whites From Blacks During the 1980’s: Small Steps Toward a More Integrated Society.” American Sociological Review 59:23-45. Ferguson, Susan. 2000. “Challenging Traditional Marriage: Never Married Chinese American & Japanese American Women.” Gender and Society 14:136-159. Fong, Colleen, and Judy Yung. 2000. “In Search of the Right Spouse: Interracial Marriage among Chinese and Japanese Americans.” in Contemporary Asian America: A Multidisciplinary Reader, edited by Min Zhou and James V. Gatewood. New York: New York University Press. Fong, Eric, and Kumiko Shibuya. 2004. “Multiethnic Cities in North America.” Annual Review of Sociology 31:285-304. Fong, Timothy P. 1998. The Contemporary Asian American Experience: Beyond the Model Minority. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Freeman, James M. 1995. Changing Identities: Vietnamese Americans, 19751995. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

References

231

Freidberg, Rachel, and Jennifer Hunt. 1995. “The Impact of Immigrants on Host Country Wages, Employment, and Growth.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 9:23-44. Frey, William, and Reynolds Farley. 1996. “Latino, Asian, and Black Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas: Are Multiethnic Metros Different?” Demography 33:35-50. Fu, Vincent Kang. 2001. “Racial Intermarriage Pairings.” Demography 38:147159. Galster, George. 1988. “Residential Segregation in American Cities: A Contrary Review.” Housing Policy Debate 10:395-442. Gans, Herbert. 1979. “Symbolic Ethnicity: The Future of Ethnic Groups and Cultures in America.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 2:1-20. —. 1988. Middle American Individualism. New York: Free Press. Gibson, Margaret A. 1989. Accommodation Without Assimilation: Sikh Immigrants in an American High School. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Gold, Steven, and Nazli Kibria. 1993. “Vietnamese Refugees and Blocked Mobility.” Asian and Pacific Migration Journal 2:27-56. Goode, Judith. 1994. “Encounters Over the Counter: Bosses, Workers, and Customers on a Changing Shopping Strip.” in Newcomers in the Workplace: Immigrants and the Restructuring of the U.S. Economy, edited by et al. Lamphere. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Gordon, Milton. 1964. Assimilation in American Life. New York: Oxford University Press. Granovetter, Mark. 1995. “The Economic Sociology of Firms and Entrepreneurs.” in The Economic Sociology of Immigration: Essays on Networks, Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship, edited by Alejandro Portes. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Griffiths, Phillip Jones. 2001. Vietnam, Inc. New York: Phaidon Press Inc. Haines, David W. 1987. “Patterns in Southeast Asian Refugee Employment: An Appraisal of the Existing Research.” Ethnic Groups 7:39-63. Harris, David R., and Hiromi Ono. 2005. “How Many Interracial Marriages Would There Be if All Groups Were of Equal Size in All Places? A New Look at National Estimates of Interracial Marriage.” Social Science Research 34:236-251. Harrison, Roderick J., and Claudette E. Bennett. 1995. “Racial and Ethnic Diversity.” in State of the Union: America in the 1990s, edited by Reynolds Farley. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Heer, David. 1996. Immigration in America’s Future: Social Science Findings and the Policy Debate. Boulder: Westview Press. Hein, Jeremy. 1995. From Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia: A Refugee Experience in the United States. New York: Twayne Publishers.

232

References

Hing, Bill Ong. 1993. Making and Remaking Asian America through Immigration Policy 1850-1990. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. Hirschman, Charles. 1996. “Studying Immigrant Adaptation from the 1990 Population Census: From Generational Comparisons to the Process of ‘Becoming American’.” in The New Second Generation, edited by Alejandro Portes. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Hirschman, Charles, and Morrison Wong. 1981. “Trends in Socioeconomic Achievement Among Immigrant and Native-Born Asian Americans, 19601976.” Sociological Quarterly 22:495-513. —. 1986. “The Extraordinary Educational Attainment of Asian Americans: A Search for Historical Evidence and Explanations.” Social Forces 65:1-27. Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette. 1994. Gendered Transitions: Mexican Experiences of Immigration. Berkeley: University of California Press. Horton, Hayward D. 1992. “Race and Wealth: A Demographic Analysis of Black Home Ownership.” Sociological Inquiry 64:480-89. —. 1999. “Critical Demography: The Paradigm of the Future?” Sociological Forum 14:363-367. Horton, Hayward D., and Melvin E. Thomas. 1998. “Race, Class, and Family Structure: Differences in Housing Values for Black and White Homeowners.” Sociological Inquiry 68:114-136. Horton, Hayward Derrick, Beverlyn Lundy Allen, Cedric Herring, and Melvin E. Thomas. 2000. “Lost in the Storm: The Sociology of the Black Working Class, 1850 to 1990.” American Sociological Review 65:128137. Horton, John. 1995. The Politics of Diversity: Immigration, Resistance, and Change in Monterey Park, California. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Hum, Tarry. 2002. “A Protected Niche? Immigrant Ethnic Economies and Labor Market Segmentation.” in Prismatic Metropolis: Inequality in Los Angeles, edited by Lawrence Bobo, Melvin Oliver, James Johnson, and Abel Valenzuela. New York: Russell Sage. Hune, Shirley. 1977. “Pacific Migration to the United States: Trends and Themes in Historical and Sociological Literature.” in Majority and Minority: The Dynamics of Race and Ethnicity in American Life., edited by Norman Yetman. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Hwang, Sean-Shong, Rogelio Saenz, and Benigno E. Aguirre. 1997. “Structural and Assimilationist Explanations of Asian American Intermarriage.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 59:758-772. Iceland, John. 1999. “Earnings Returns to Occupational Status: Are Asian Americans Disadvantaged?” Social Science Research 28:45-65. —. 2004. “Beyond Black and White: Metropolitan Residential Segregation in Multi-Ethnic America.” Social Science Research 33:248-271. Jacobs, Jerrry A., and Teresa G. Labov. 2002. “Gender Differentials in Intermarriage among Sixteen Race and Ethnic Groups.” Sociological Forum 17:621-646.

References

233

Jacobson, Matthew Frye. 1999. Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Jensen, Leif, and Yoshimi Chitose. 1996. “Today’s Second Generation: Evidence from the 1990 Census.” Pp. Russell Sage in The New Second Generation, edited by Alejandro Portes. New York. Jiobu, Robert. 1988. “Ethnic Hegemony and the Japanese of California.” American Sociological Review 53:353-367. Jo, Moon. 1992. “Korean merchants in the black community: Prejudice among the victims of prejudice.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 15:395-411. Kaiser, David E. 2000. American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson, and the Origins of the Vietnam War. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kalmijn, Mattijs. 1993. “Trends in Black/White Intermarriage.” Social Forces 72:119-46. —. 1998. “Intermarriage and Homogamy: Causes, Patterns, Trends.” Annual Review of Sociology 24:395-421. Kang, Miliann. 1997. “Manicuring Race, Gender, and Class: Service Interactions in New York City Korean Nail Salons.” Race, Gender, and Class 4:143-164. —. 2003. “The Managed Hand: The Commercialization of Bodies and Emotions in Korean Immigrant-Owned Nail Salons.” Gender and Society 17:820-839. Kao, Grace, and Jennifer Thompson. 2003. “Racial and Ethnic Stratification in Educational Achievement and Attainment.” Annual Review of Sociology 29:417-442. Kasarda, John. 1995. “Industrial Restructuring and the Changing Location of Jobs.” in State of the Union: America in the 1990s, edited by Reynolds Farley. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Kazal, Russell. 1995. “Revisiting Assimilation: The Rise, Fall, and Reappraisal of a Concept in American Ethnic History.” American Historical Review 100:437-72. Keith, Verna M., and Cedric Herring. 1991. “Skin Tone and Stratification in the Black Community.” American Journal of Sociology 97:760-778. Kibria, Nazli. 1993. Family Tightrope: The Changing Lives of Vietnamese Americans. Princeton: Princeton University Press. —. 1994. “Household Structure and Family Ideologies: The Dynamics of Immigrant Economic Adaptation Among Vietnamese Refugees.” Social Problems 41:81-96. Kitano, Harry H., and Roger Daniels. 2000. Asian Americans: Emerging Minorities. New York: Prentice-Hall.

234

References

Kitano, Harry H., W.T. Yeung, L. Chai, and H. Hatanaka. 1984. “AsianAmerican Interracial Marriage.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 46:179-90. Kozol, Jonathon. 1992. Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools. New York: Harperperennial. Landolt, Patricia, Lilian Autler, and Sonia Baires. 1999. “From ‘Hermano Lejano’ to ‘Hermano Mayor’: The Dialectics of Salvadoran Transnationalism.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 2:290-315. Langberg, Mark, and Reynolds Farley. 1985. “Residential Segregation of Asian Americans in 1980.” Sociology and Social Research 69:51-61. Langguth, A.J. 2000. Our Vietnam/Nuoc Viet Ta: A History of the War 19541975. New York: Simon & Schuster. Lee, Ching Kwan. 1995. “Engendering the Worlds of Labor: Women Workers, Labor Markets, and the Production Policies in the South China Economic Miracle.” American Sociological Review 60:378-397. Lee, Jee-Young Jennifer. 2002a. Civility in the City: Blacks, Jews, and Koreans in Urban America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. —. 2002b. “From Civil Relations to Racial Conflict: Merchant-Customer Interactions in Urban America.” American Sociological Review 67:77-98. Lee, Robert. 1999. Orientals: Asian Americans in Popular Culture. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Lee, Sharon, and Barry Edmondson. 2005. “New Marriages, New Families: U.S. Racial and Hispanic Intermarriage.” in Population Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: Population Reference Bureau. Lee, Sharon, and Marilyn Fernandez. 1998. “Trends in Asian American Racial/Ethnic Intermarriage: A Comparison of 1980 and 1990 Census Data.” Sociological Perspectives 41:323-42. Lee, Sharon, and Keiko Yamanaka. 1990. “Patterns of Asian American Intermarriage and Marital Assimilation.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 21:287-305. Levy, Frank. 1995. “Incomes and Income Equality.” in State of the Union: America in the 1990s, edited by Reynolds Farley. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Lewin-Epstein, Noah, Yuval Elmelech, and Moshe Semyonov. 1997. “Ethnic Inequality in Home Ownership and the Value of Housing: The Case of Immigrants in Israel.” Social Forces 75:1439-1462. Li, Peter S. 1977. “Occupational Achievement and Kinship Assistance Among Chinese Immigrants in Chicago.” Sociological Quarterly 18:478-489. Lieberson, Stanley. 1980. A Piece of the Pie. Berkeley: University of CA Press. Lieberson, Stanley, and Mary Waters. 1988. From Many Strands: Ethnic and Racial Groups in Contemporary America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Lien, Pei-Te. 2001. The Making of Asian America Through Political Participation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

References

235

Light, Ivan. 1972. Ethnic Enterprise in America: Business and Welfare Among Chinese, Japanese, and Blacks. Berkeley: University of California Press. —. 1984. “Immigrant and Ethnic Enterprise in North America.” in Majority and Minority, edited by Norman R. Yetman. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon. Light, Ivan, and Edna Bonacich. 1988. Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Koreans in Los Angeles: 1965-1982. Berkeley: University of California Press. Light, Ivan, and Steven Gold. 2000. Ethnic Economies. San Diego: Academic Press. Light, Ivan, and Elizabeth Roach. 1997. “Self-Employment: Mobility Ladder or Economic Lifeboat?” in Ethnic Los Angeles, edited by Roger Waldinger and Bozorgmehr Medhi. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Light, Ivan, and Carolyn Rosenstein. 1995. Race, Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship in Urban America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Lim, Nelson. 2001. “On the Backs of Blacks? Immigrants and the Fortunes of African Americans.” in Strangers at the Gates: New Immigrants in Urban America, edited by Roger Waldinger. Berkeley: University of California Press. Loescher, Gil, and John A. Scanlan. 1986. Calculated Kindness: Refugees and America’s Half-Open Door, 1945 to the Present. New York: Free Press. Logan, John. 2001. “Ethnic Diversity Grows, Neighborhood Integration Lags Behind.” Albany: Lewis Mumford Center. Logan, John, and Richard Alba. 1993. “Locational Returns to Human Capital: Minority Access to Suburban Community Resources.” Demography 30:243-268. —. 1999. “Minority Niches and Immigrant Enclaves in New York and Los Angeles: Trends and Impacts.” in Immigration and Opportunity: Race, Ethnicity, and Employment in the United States, edited by Frank D. Bean and Stephanie Bell-Rose. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Logan, John, Richard Alba, and Shu-Yin Leung. 1996. “Minority Access to White Suburbs: A Multiregion Comparison.” Social Forces 74:851-81. Logan, John, Richard Alba, Tom McNulty, and Brian Fisher. 1996. “Making a Place in the Metropolis: Residential Assimilation and Segregation in City and Suburb.” Demography 33:443-53. Logan, John, Richard Alba, and Brian J. Stults. 2003. “Enclave and Entrepreneurs: Assessing the Payoff for Immigrants and Minorities.” International Migration Review 37:344-373. Logan, John, Richard Alba, and Wenquan Zhang. 2002. “Immigrant Enclaves and Ethnic Communities in New York and Los Angeles.” American Sociological Review 67:299-322. Logan, John, and Harvey Molotch. 1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley: University of California Press.

236

References

Logan, John R., Richard D. Alba, and Thomas L. McNulty. 1994. “Ethnic Economies in Metropolitan Regions: Miami and Beyond.” Social Forces 72:691-724. Logan, John, and Mark Schneider. 1984. “Racial Segregation and Racial Change in American Suburbs, 1970 to 1980.” American Journal of Sociology 89:874-888. Logan, John, Brian J. Stults, and Reynolds Farley. 2004. “Segregation of Minorities in the Metropolis: Two Decades of Change.” Demography 41:1-22. Loscocco, Karyn A., and Kevin Leicht. 1991. “Gender, Work-Family linkages and Economic Success Among Small Business Owners.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 55:875-887. Lowe, Lisa. 1996. Immigrant Acts: On Asian American Cultural Politics. Durham: Duke University Press. Madamba, Anna B. 1998. Underemployment Among Asians in the United States: Asian Indian, Filipino, and Vietnamese Workers. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Mann, Robert. 2001. A Grand Delusion: America’s Descent Into Vietnam. New York: Basic Books. Marger, Martin, and Constance Hoffman. 1992. “Ethnic Enterprise in Ontario: Immigrant Participation in the Small Business Sector.” International Migration Review 26:968-981. Massey, Douglas. 1985. “Ethnic Residential Segregation: A Theoretical Synthesis and Empirical Review.” Sociology and Social Research 69:315350. —. 1990. “Segregation and the Making of the Underclass.” American Journal of Sociology 96:329-357. —. 2001. “Residential Segregation and Neighborhood Conditions in U.S. Metropolitan Areas.” in America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences, edited by Neil J. Smelser, William Julius Wilson, and Faith Mitchell. Washington D.C.: National Research Council. Massey, Douglas, and Nancy Denton. 1987. “Trends in the Residential Segregation of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians: 1970-1980.” American Sociological Review 52:802-825. —. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Massey, Douglas, and Mary J. Fisher. 1999. “Does Rising Income Bring Integration? New Results for Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in 1990.” Social Science Research 28:316–326. McDonald, John F., and Robert A. Moffitt. 1980. “The Uses of Tobit Analysis.” Review of Economics and Statistics 62:318-321. Merton, Robert. 1941. “Intermarriage and the Social Structure: Fact and Theory.” Psychiatry 4:361-374.

References

237

Min, Pyong Gap. 1987. “Factors Contributing to Ethnic Business: A Comprehensive Synthesis.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 28:173-189. —. 1996. Caught in the Middle: Korean Communities in New York and Los Angeles. Berkeley: University of California Press. Model, Suzanne. 1988. “The Economic Progress of European and East Asian Americans.” in Majority and Minority: The Dynamics of Race and Ethnicity in American Life, edited by Norman Yetman. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Moore, Joan, and Raquel Pinderhughes. 1993. In the Barrios: Latinos and the Underclass Debate. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Moran, Rachel F. 2001. Interracial Intimacy: The Regulation of Race and Romance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Neckerman, Catherine, Prudence Carter, and Jennifer Lee. 1999. “Segmented assimilation and minority cultures of mobility.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 22:945-965. Nee, Victor, and Jimy Sanders. 1985. “The Road to Parity: Determinants of the Socioeconomic Achievements of Asian Americans.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 8:75-93. Nee, Victor, Jimy Sanders, and Scott Sernau. 1994. “Job Transitions in an Immigrant Metropolis: Ethnic Boundaries and the Mixed Economy.” American Sociological Review 59:849-872. Nelson, Gloria Luz M. 1988. “Assimilation in the United States: Occupational Attainment of Asian Americans, 1980.” Providence: Population Studies and Training Center, Brown University. Okihiro, Gary Y. 1994. Margins and Mainstreams: Asian in American History and Culture. Seattle: University of Washington Press. —. 2001. The Columbia Guide to Asian American History. New York: Columbia University Press. Oliver, Melvin, and Thomas Shapiro. 1995. Black Wealth/ White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality. New York: Routledge Press. Ong, Paul M., and Don T. Nakanishi. 1999. “Becoming Citizens, Becoming Voters: The Naturalization and Political Participation of Asian Pacific Immigrants.” in Asian Americans: Experiences and Perspectives, edited by Timothy Fong and Larry H. Shinagawa. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ong, Paul, Kyeyoung Park, and Yasmin Tong. 1994. “The Korean-Black Conflict and the State.” in The New Asian Immigration in Los Angeles and Global Restructuring, edited by Paul Ong, Edna Bonacich, and Lucie Cheng. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

238

References

Pagnini, D.L., and S.P. Morgan. 1990. “Intermarriage and Social Distance Among U.S. Immigrants at the Turn of the Century.” American Journal of Sociology 96:405-32. Pang, Valerie Ooka. 1998. Struggling to Be Heard: The Unmet Needs of Asian Pacific American Children. Albany: State University of New York Press. Park, Kyeyoung. 1997. The Korean American Dream: Immigrants and Small Business in New York City. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Park, Robert E. 1928. “Human Migration and the Marginal Man.” American Journal of Sociology 33:881-93. Portes, Alejandro. 1995. The Economic Sociology of Immigration: Essays on Networks, Ethnicity and Entrepreneurship. New York: Russell Sage. Portes, Alejandro, and Robert L. Bach. 1985. Latin Journey: Cuban and Mexican Immigrants in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press. Portes, Alejandro, William J. Haller, and Luis Eduardo Guarnizo. 2002. “Transnational Entrepreneurs: An Alternative Form of Immigrant Economic Adaptation.” American Sociological Review 67:278-298. Portes, Alejandro, and Robert D. Manning. 1986. “The Immigrant Enclave: Theory and Empirical Examples.” in Majority and Minority, edited by Norman Yetman. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon. Portes, Alejandro, and Ruben Rumbaut. 1996. Immigrant America: A Portrait. Berkeley: University of California Press. —. 2001. Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Portes, Alejandro, and Alex Stepick. 1993. City on the Edge: The Transformation of Miami. Berkeley: University of California Press. Portes, Alejandro, and Min Zhou. 1993. “The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and its Variants.” The Annals 503:74-96. —. 1996. “Self-Employment and the Earnings of Immigrants.” American Sociological Review 61:219-230. —. 1999. “Entrepreneurship and Economic Progress in the 1990s: A Comparative Analysis of Immigrants and African Americans.” in Immigration and Opportunity: Race, Ethnicity, and Employment in the United States, edited by Frank D. Bean and Stephanie Bell-Rose. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Quillian, Lincoln. 1995. “Prejudice as a Response to Perceived Group Threat.” American Sociological Review 60:586-611. Raijman, Rebecca, and Marta Tienda. 2000. “Immigrants’ Pathway to Business Ownership: A Comparative Ethnic Perspective.” International Migration Review 34:682-706. —. 2004. “Ethnic Foundations of Economic Transactions: Mexican and Korean Immigrant Entrepreneurs in Chicago.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 26:783801. Reimers, Cordelia W. 1998. “Unskilled Immigration and Changes in the Wage Distributions of Black, Mexican American, and Non-Hispanic White Male

References

239

Dropouts.” in Help or Hindrance? The Economic Implications of Immigration for African Americans, edited by Daniel S. Hamermesh and Frank D. Bean. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Roncek, Dennis W. 1992. “Learning More from Tobit Coefficients: Extending a Comparative Analysis of Political Protest.” American Sociological Review 57:503-507. Root, Maria P.P. 2001. Love’s Revolution: Racial Intermarriage. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Rosenfeld, Michael. 2001. “The Salience of Pan-National Hispanic and Asian Identities in U.S. Marriage Markets.” Demography 38:161-175. Rumbaut, Ruben. 1991. “The Agony of Exile: A Study of the Migration and Adaptation of Indochinese Refugee Adults and Children.” in Refugee Children: Theory, Research, and Services, edited by Frederick L. Ahearn and Jean L. Athey. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. —. 1994. “The Crucible Within: Ethnic Identity, Self-Esteem, and Segmented Assimilation Among Children of Immigrants.” International Migration Review 28:748-793. —. 1995. “Vietnamese, Laotian, and Cambodian Americans.” in Asian Americans: Contemporary Trends and Issues, edited by Pyong Gap Min. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. —. 1996. “Ties that Bind: Immigration and Immigrant Families in the United States.” in Immigration and the Family: Research and Policy on U.S. Immigrants, edited by Alan Booth, Ann C. Crouter, and Nancy Landale. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. —. 1999. “Assimilation and Its Discontents: Ironies and Paradoxes.” in The Handbook of International Migration, edited by Charles Hirschman, Philip Kasinitz, and Josh DeWind. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Rutledge, Paul J. 1992. The Vietnamese Experience in America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Saito, Leland. 1998. Race and Politics: Asian Americans, Latinos, and Whites in a Los Angeles Suburb. Champagne: University of Illinois Press. Sakamoto, Arthur, and Satomi Furuichi. 2002. “The Wages of U.S.-born Asian Americans at the End of the 20th Century.” Asian American Policy Review 10:17-30. Sakamoto, Arthur, and Yu Xie. 2006. “The Socioeconomic Attainments of Asian Americans.” in Asian Americans: Contemporary Trends and Issues, edited by Pyong Gap Min. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. Sánchez, George J. 1999. “Face the Nation: Race, Immigration, and the Rise of Nativism in late-Twentieth Century America.” in The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience, edited by Charles Hirschman, Philip Kasinitz, and Josh DeWind. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

240

References

Sandefur, Gary D., Molly Martin, Jennifer Eggerling-Boeck, Susan E. Mannon, and Ann M. Meier. 2001. “An Overview of Racial and Ethnic Demographic Trends.” in America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences, Vol. 1, edited by Neil J. Smelser, William Julius Wilson, and Faith Mitchell. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Sanders, Jimy M., and Victor Nee. 1987. “The Limits of Ethnic Solidarity in the Enclave Economy.” American Sociological Review 52:745-773. —. 1996. “Immigrant Self-Employment: The Family as Social Capital and the Value of Human Capital.” American Sociological Review 61:231-249. Sanders, Jimy, Victor Nee, and Scott Sernau. 2002. “Asian Immigrants’ Reliance on Social Ties in a Multiethnic Labor Market.” Social Forces 81:281-314. Sassen, Saskia. 1988. The Mobility of Capital and Labor: A Study in International Investment and Labor Flow. New York: Cambridge University Press. —. 1991. The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Schoen, Robert. 1986. “A Methodological Analysis of Intergroup Marriage.” Sociological Methodoloy 16:49-78. Service, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization. 2001. Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1999. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Shibutani, Tamotsu, and Kian M. Kwan. 1965. Ethnic Stratification. New York: Macmillan Press. Shinagawa, Larry Hajime, and Gin Yong Pang. 1996. “Asian American Panethnicity and Intermarriage.” Amerasian Journal 22:127-152. Song, Miri. 2000. Helping Out: Children’s Labor in Ethnic Businesses. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Steinberg, Stephen. 1989. The Ethnic Myth: Race, Ethnicity, and Class in America. Boston: Beacon Press. Steinmetz, George, and Erik Olin Wright. 1989. “The Rise and Fall of the Petty Bourgeoisie: Changing Patterns of Self-Employment in the Postwar United States.” American Journal of Sociology 94:973-1018. Strand, Paul J., and Woodrow Jones. 1985. Indochinese Refugees in America: Problems of Adaptation and Assimilation. Raleigh, NC: Duke University Press. Sturdevant, Saundra Pollack, and Brenda Stoltzfus. 1993. Let the Good Times Roll: Prostitution and the U.S. Military in Asia. New York: New Press. Takaki, Ronald. 1998. Strangers From a Different Shore: A History of Asian Americans. New York: Penguin Books. Takezawa, Yasuko. 2000. “Children of Inmates: The Effects of the Redress Movement among Third-Generation Japanese Americans.” in Contemporary Asian America: A Multidisciplinary Reader, edited by Min Zhou and James V. Gatewood. New York: New York University Press.

References

241

Tang, Joyce. 1993. “Caucasians and Asians in Engineering: A Study in Occupational Mobility and Departure.” Research in the Sociology of Organizations 11:217-256. Tchen, John Kuo Wei. 2001. New York Before Chinatown: Orientalism and the Shaping of American Culture, 1776-1882. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Thomas, William I., and Florian Znaniecki. 1958. The Polish Peasant in Europe and America, Vol. 2. New York: Dover Publications. Tran, Thanh V. 1991. “Sponsorship and Employment Status Among Indochinese Refugees in the United States.” International Migration Review 25:536-50. Tseng, Yen-Fen. 1995. “Beyond ‘Little Taipei’: The Development of Taiwanese Immigrant Businesses in Los Angeles.” International Migration Review 24:33-58. Uneke, Okori. 1996. “Ethnicity and Small Business Ownership: Contrasts Between Blacks and Chinese in Toronto.” Work, Employment and Society 10:529-548. Waldinger, Roger. 1986. “Immigrant Enterprise: A Critique and Reformulation.” Theory and Society 15:249-285. —. 1989. “Structural Opportunity or Ethnic Advantage? Immigrant Business Development in New York.” International Migration Review 23:48-72. —. 1995. “When the Melting Pot Boils Over: The Irish, Jews, Blacks, and Koreans of New York.” in The Bubbling Cauldron: Race, Ethnicity, and the Urban Crisis, edited by Michael Peter Smith and Joe R. Feagin. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. —. 1996. Still the Promised City: African-Americans and New Immigrants in Postindustrial New York. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Waldinger, Roger, and Jee-Young Jennifer Lee. 2001. “New Immigrants in Urban America.” in Strangers at the Gates: New Immigrants in Urban America, edited by Roger Waldinger. Berkeley: University of California Press. Waters, Mary. 1990. Ethnic Options: Later Generation Ethnicity in America. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wetzel, James R. 1995. “Labor Force, Unemployment, and Earnings.” in State of the Union: America in the 1990s, edited by Reynolds Farley. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. White, Michael J., Ann E. Biddlecom, and Shenyang Guo. 1993. “Immigration, Naturalization, and Residential Assimilation among Asian Americans in 1980.” Social Forces 73:93-117. White, Michael J., Eric Fong, and Qian Cai. 2003. “The Segregation of AsianOrigin Groups in the United States and Canada.” Social Science Research 32:148-167.

242

References

Wilkes, Rima, and John Iceland. 2004. “Hypersegregation in the Twenty-First Century.” Demography 41:23-37. Wilson, Kenneth, and W. Allen Martin. 1982. “Ethnic Enclaves: A Comparison of the Cuban and Black Economies.” American Journal of Sociology 88:135-160. Wilson, Kenneth, and Alejandro Portes. 1980. “Immigrant Enclaves: An Analysis of the Labor Market Experiences of Cubans in Miami.” American Journal of Sociology 85:295-319. Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. —. 1996. When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. Wong, Eugene F. 1985. “Asian American Middleman Minority Theory: The Framework of an American Myth.” Journal of Ethnic Studies 13:51-88. Wong, Morrison, and Charles Hirschman. 1983. “Labor Force Participation and Socioeconomic Attainment of Asian American Women.” Sociological Perspectives 26:423-446. Woo, Deborah. 2000. “The Inventing and Reinventing of ‘Model Minorities’: The Cultural Veil Obscuring Structural Sources of Inequality.” in Asian Americans: Experiences and Perspectives, edited by Timothy Fong and Larry H. Shinagawa. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. —. 2002. Glass Ceilings and Asian Americans: The New Face of Workplace Barriers. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Wu, Diana Ting Liu. 1997. Asian Pacific Americans in the Workplace. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. Xie, Yu, and Kimberly Goyette. 2003. “Social Mobility and the Educational Choices of Asian Americans.” Social Science Research 32:467-498. —. 2004. A Demographic Portrait of Asian Americans. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Yamanaka, Keiko, and Kent McClelland. 1994. “Earning the Model-Minority Image: Diverse Strategies of Economic Adaptation by Asian American Women.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 17:79-114. Yancey, William, Eugene Ericksen, and Richard Juliani. 1976. “Emergent Ethnicity: A Review and Reformulation.” American Sociological Review 41:391-403. Yinger, John. 1987. “The Racial Dimensions of Urban Housing Markets in the 1980s.” in Divided Neighborhoods: Changing Patterns of Racial Segregation, edited by G. Tobin. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Yoon, In-Jin. 1991. “The Changing Significance of Ethnic and Class Resources in Immigrant Businesses: The Case of Korean Immigrant Businesses in Chicago.” International Migration Review 25:303-332. —. 1995. “The Growth of Korean Immigrant Entrepreneurship in Chicago.” Racial & Ethnic Studies 18:315-335. —. 1997. On My Own: Korean Businesses and Race Relations in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

References

243

Yu, Henry. 2000. Thinking Orientals: Migration, Contact, and Exoticism in Modern America. London: Oxford University Press. Yu, Ji-Yeon. 2002. Beyond the Shadow of Camptown: Korean Military Brides in America. New York: New York University Press. Zai, Liang, and Naomi Ito. 2001. “Intermarriage of Asian Americans in the New York City Region: Contemporary Patterns and Future Prospects.” International Migration Review 33:876-900. Zeng, Zhen, and Yu Xie. 2004. “Asian-Americans’ Earnings Disadvantage Reexamined: The Role of Place of Education.” American Journal of Sociology 109:1075-1108. Zhou, Min. 1992. New York’s Chinatown: The Socioeconomic Potential of an Urban Enclave. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. —. 2001. “Contemporary Immigration and the Dynamics of Race and Ethnicity.” in America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences, edited by Neil J. Smelser, William Julius Wilson, and Faith Mitchell. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. —. 2004. “Revisiting Ethnic Entrepreneurship: Convergencies, Controversies, and Conceptual Advancements.” International Migration Review 38:10401075. Zhou, Min, and Carl L. Bankston. 1992. “Variations in Economic Adaptation: The Case of Post-1965 Chinese, Koreans, and Vietnamese.” National Journal of Sociology 6:105-140. —. 1995. “Asian-American Entrepreneurship: The Causes and Consequences.” National Journal of Sociology 9:1-35. —. 1998. Growing Up American: How Vietnamese Children Adapt to Life in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Zhou, Min, and John Logan. 1989. “Returns on Human Capital in Ethnic Enclaves.” American Sociological Review 54:809-820. Zia, Helen. 2000. Asian American Dreams: The Emergence of an American People. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.


Index Boyd, Robert, 106-107 Browne, Irene, 69 Butler, John, 102, 106

acculturation, 23, 26, 109, 198, 208 Aguirre, Benigno, 172, 177-178 Alba, Richard D., 1-3, 21-23, 2627, 93, 107, 108, 111-113, 139140, 142-144, 146, 169, 199 Aldrich, Howard, 101 Allen, Beverlyn Lundy, 27, 69 Amott, Teresa, 10 Asian Indians, 60, 74, 81, 88, 9395, 114, 116-117, 119, 121125, 132, 134, 145, 149, 151154, 159, 161, 164-165, 180, 182, 202, 205, 210, 216 Autler, Lilian, 113

Cabezas, Amado, 2, 70 Cai, Qian, 141, 143 California, 15, 18, 38, 44, 54, 5657, 108, 143, 146, 148-152, 154, 159, 162, 165-167, 170, 204, 211-214, 218 Cambodian, 33, 38-39, 43, 50, 204 Caplan, Nathan, 3, 37, 50, 100 Caputo, Philip, 29, 33 Carter, Prudence, 24 central city, 8, 21, 146 chain migration, 138 Chan, Suchen, 16-19, 21, 25, 35, 37, 50, 58-59, 70, 102, 142, 170 Chang, Gordon, 57 Charles, Camille Zubrinsky, 142, 146 Cheng, Lucie, 72, 110, 142, 177 Chinese, 4, 9, 11, 15-17, 19, 29, 31, 32, 38-39, 43-44, 46, 5052, 57, 60-61, 69-70, 75, 77, 79-81, 83-89, 91-97, 102, 105, 114-117, 119-123, 125, 127129, 131-132, 134, 143-146, 148-149, 152-159, 161, 163165, 170, 174, 177, 179-183, 187-188, 190-194, 202, 204, 210, 216 Chinese Exclusion Act, 4, 16, 19, 102 Chiswick, Barry R., 68, 103, 105 Chitose, Yoshimi, 69 Chow, Esther Hgan-Ling, 71 Choy, Marcella H., 3, 37, 50, 100 Chung, Tom L., 143 citizenship (also see naturalization), 1, 21-22, 56, 82, 102, 110

Bach, Robert L., 69 Baires, Sonia, 232 Bankston, Carl L., 37, 45, 48, 5052, 58-60, 72, 100-101, 107, 196 Barkan, Elliot, 26 Barringer, Herbert, 70, 142 Bates, Timothy, 70, 105-107, 109 Bennett, Claudette E., 141 Bielby, Denise D., 147 Bielby, William T., 147 Blacks, 9, 24, 61-62, 68-69, 71, 105, 138, 141-142, 172, 175177, 179, 181, 211, Blalock, Herbert M., 28, 171 Blau, Peter, 171, 173 Blauner, Robert, 28, 138 Blum, Terry, 173 boat people, 12, 20, 37, 45, 48, 51, 53, 56, 62-63, 72, 76, 78, 81, 97-99, 155, 167, 169, 198-199, 205-206, 218 Bobo, Lawrence, 146 Bogardus, Emory, 170, 199 Bonacich, Edna, 25, 28, 68, 101, 103, 105, 107, 110, 138 Borjas, George, 69, 103, 105, 107

245

246 college degree, 8, 42-44, 47, 49, 52, 62, 70-71, 73, 75, 77-78, 81-83, 86, 88, 90, 93, 95, 97, 106, 109, 122, 126, 128, 130131, 148, 159-160, 163-164, 178-179, 184-185, 188-189, 193-194, 202, 206, 209, 214 Crowder, Kyle, 2, 144 culture, 1, 2, 3, 7, 9-13, 16, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29, 34, 38, 49, 63, 73, 101, 106, 109, 113, 122, 124, 126, 137-138, 143, 148, 169, 171-177, 179, 185, 197, 202, 204, 211, 214, 215, 217 Danico, May Yu, 141, 143 dating, 176 demographics, 103, 117 Denton, Nancy, 138, 139, 142, 145 discrimination, 4, 9, 12, 15-17, 24, 50, 52, 58-59, 66, 69-72, 74, 88, 90, 100, 104-105, 113, 118, 122, 124, 126, 131, 133, 138139, 141, 142, 166, 171, 201, 208-209, 212, 214, 215, 219 Do, Hien Duc, 52, 58, 60, 65, 72, 217 Duncan, Otis, 5, 73, 78, 80, 82-83, 85, 87, 89, 91-92, 94, 96, 100, 171, 201, 205-206 Dunham, Constance R., 70, 105, 107, 109 economy of the U.S., 17, 25, 53, 64-68, 104, 111-113, 133, 135, 219 Edmondson, Barry, 173 education, 12, 16, 25, 47, 62, 68, 70-71, 73, 75, 116, 118, 139, 142, 184-186, 188-189, 204, 206, 215 Eggerling-Boeck, Jennifer, 141 employment, 5, 10, 16, 25, 31, 37, 41-44, 46-47, 49, 52-53, 61-62,

Index 65-68, 70-71, 73-79, 81-84, 8693, 95, 97-107, 113-114, 116118, 121-135, 139, 148-154, 159, 161, 163-164, 178-179, 183-193, 195, 201, 205-210, 215 enclave, 10-11, 38, 54, 60, 64, 73, 78, 81, 86, 95, 97, 104, 108, 110-112, 114, 116-117, 121, 126, 128, 131-134, 148, 159, 163, 178, 193, 208-210, 220 endogamy, 2, 7, 9, 169-175, 177, 182, 184-186, 188-189, 193, 195-198, 215-217 England, Paula, 10 English fluency, 37, 72, 122, 169 entrepreneurship, 6, 42-44, 74, 101-114, 116-118, 121-122, 124, 126-128, 131-134, 148, 169, 188-189, 193, 201, 208210 Ericksen, Eugene, 23 Espenshade, Thomas, 57, 58 Espiritu, Yen Le, 110, 176-177, 197 ethnic community, 10, 11, 38, 54, 60, 64, 73, 78, 81, 86, 95, 97, 104, 108, 110-112, 114, 116117, 121, 126, 128, 131-134, 148, 159, 163, 178, 193, 208210, 220 ethnic identity, 11, 18, 86, 88, 90, 128, 146, 199 Evans, M.D.R., 108 family, 10-11, 18, 20-21, 24, 37, 40-47, 49, 52, 61-62, 73, 7578, 81, 86, 99, 107, 122, 126, 164, 175, 198, 204, 206-207, 211, 214 Farkas, George, 10 Farley, Reynolds, 140, 142, 145 Ferguson, Susan, 175 Filipinos, 9, 11, 18-19, 57, 61, 8687, 89, 91-92, 114-116, 119-

Index 120, 127-129, 144-145, 150, 152, 156-158, 163, 171, 177, 179-183, 187-192 first generation, 3, 5, 8, 45, 47, 49, 52-53, 66, 73-76, 78, 81-82, 86, 88, 90, 93, 95, 97-100, 104, 114, 116-118, 120-122, 124, 126-128, 131-132, 134, 144, 148, 159, 198, 202, 205-210, 215, 218 Fisher, Mary J., 142 Fong, Colleen, 175 Fong, Timothy, 8, 71, 142, 170, 174 Freeman, James M., 48, 51, 52 Freidberg, Rachel, 68 Frey, William, 142, 145 Fu, Vincent Kang, 172 Furuichi, Satomi, 72 Galster, George, 139 Gans, Herbert, 23, 141 Gardner, Robert W., 70, 142 gender, 5, 7, 8-10, 16, 18, 49, 67, 70-72, 86, 88, 90, 93, 98, 108, 126-128, 131, 147, 159, 171175, 177, 179, 181-182, 184, 188-189, 197-198, 202, 207, 209, 216 geographic distribution, 8-9, 29, 30, 56, 110, 113, 141-142, 173 Gibson, Margaret A., 24 glass ceiling, 70 Gold, Steven, 3, 15, 37, 53, 72, 108, 112-113, 132 Goode, Judith, 109 Gordon, Milton, 1, 22-23, 25-26, 109, 137, 170, 172, 199 Goyette, Kimberly, 72 Granovetter, Mark, 107 Griffiths, Phillip Jones, 32-33

247 Haines, David W., 72 Haller, William J., 108, 132 Harris, David R., 173 Harrison, Roderick J., 141 Heer, David, 21, 56, 58, 103 Hein, Jeremy, 3, 52, 72 Herring, Cedric, 69 high school, 41-45, 47, 49, 62, 73, 75, 77, 79-80, 82-89, 91-92, 95, 97, 127, 129-130, 148, 178, 183-194 Hing, Bill Ong, 17, 21, 25, 35, 58, 59, 171 Hirschman, Charles, 23, 70-71, 103, 105 Hmong, 9, 37, 51 Hoffman, Constance, 105 homeownership, 6, 10, 42-44, 49, 62, 76, 81-82, 86, 95, 97, 109, 128, 130, 159-160, 162, 164, 178-179, 188, 213-214 Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette, 71 Horton, Hayward Derrick, 3, 27, 69, 141 Horton, John, 24, 141, 143, 146 Huber, Gregory A., 57-58 Hum, Tarry, 111 human capital, 7, 10, 43, 45, 53, 66, 68-73, 83, 100, 108, 128, 148, 178, 196-197, 199, 204, 206-208, 213-214, 218-219 Hune, Shirley, 70 Hunt, Jennifer, 68 Hwang, Sean-Shong, 172, 177178 Iceland, John, 72, 142 immigration (waves), 5, 18, 37-38, 45, 47-53, 56, 59, 63, 140, 204 income (household and personal), 2, 5, 10, 24, 40-46, 49, 52, 6162, 66-78, 81-83, 86, 88, 90, 93, 95, 97-100, 109, 123, 125,

248 127-130, 139, 147-152, 154, 159, 161, 163, 167, 172, 178, 183-188, 190-194, 201, 205207 industry, economic, 10, 67, 73, 7581, 83-89, 91-92, 95, 97, 111112, 121, 124, 126, 138, 148, 159, 161, 163, 178, 183-184, 187-188, 190-193, 209 intermarriage, 16, 18, 169-171, 215-217 intermarriage (also interracial marriage), 137, 169, 171-177, 179, 182, 184, 186, 194, 196, 215, 218-219 Ito, Naomi, 172-174 Jacobs, Jerry A., 172, 174 Jacobson, Matthew Frye, 24 Jensen, Leif, 69 Jiobu, Robert, 101, 107 Jo, Moon, 177 Johnson Jr., James H., 19, 33 Jones, Woodrow, 72 Juliani, Richard, 23 Kaiser, David E., 32 Kalmijn, Mattijs, 171, 173-174 Kang, Miliann, 108 Kao, Grace, 72 Kasarda, John, 67, 103 Kazal, Russell, 26 Keith, Verna, 69 Kibria, Nazli, 10, 37, 48, 53, 7172 Kitano, Harry H., 170, 172 Koreans, 9, 11, 16, 19, 57, 61, 69, 86-92, 115-116, 119-120, 127, 129, 144-146, 150, 152, 156158, 163, 179, 181-184, 187, 189-192 Kozol, Jonathon, 139 Kwan, Kian M., 27 Labov, Teresa G., 172, 174

Index Landolt, Patricia, 113 language, 9-10, 12, 25, 29, 37-39, 41-44, 46-47, 49, 52, 61-62, 68, 71-73, 75, 77-89, 91-92, 95, 97, 103, 105-106, 109, 122123, 125-127, 129-130, 148153, 159, 161-163, 167, 169170, 176, 178, 183-194, 214 Lee, Ching Kwan, 10 Lee, Jee-Young Jennifer, 109, 110 Lee, Robert, 24, 174 Lee, Sharon, 170, 173-175, 199 Leicht, Kevin, 10 Leung, Shu-Yin, 2, 139, 146 Levin, Michael J., 70, 142 Levy, Frank, 68 Li, Peter S., 109 Lie, John, 177 Lieberson, Stanley, 23-24, 138 Lien, Pei-The, 57 Light, Ivan, 100-103, 105-109, 111-113, 132 Lim, Nelson, 68 Little Saigon, 54, 108, 135, 204, 210 Loescher, Gil, 35, 45, 50, 59 Logan, John R., 2, 21, 93, 101, 105, 107-108, 111-113, 139140, 142-146 Los Angeles, 11, 24, 54-55, 73, 108, 111, 122, 142-143, 155156, 161, 179, 209 Loscocco, Karyn, 10 Lowe, Lisa, 175 Madamba, Anna B., 72 Mann, Robert, 29, 33 Manning, Robert D., 101, 107108, 111 Mannon, Susan E., 238 Marger, Martin, 105 Martin, Molly, 101 Marzan, Gilbert, 139-140, 143 Massey, Douglas, 138-140, 142, 145

Index Matthaei, Julie, 10 McClelland, Kent, 70, 71 McDonald, John F., 147, 160, 162 McNulty, Tom, 107-108, 111-113 media images (also cultural images), 16, 35, 59, 176, 177, 215 Meier, Ann M., 141 Merton, Robert, 172 Min, Pyong Gap, 101, 105-110 mixed race, 7, 199 model minority, 70 Model, Suzanne, 70 Modell, John, 101, 103, 107 Moffittt, Robert A., 147, 160, 162 Molotch, Harvey, 139 Moore, Joan, 69 Moran, Rachel F., 171 Morgan, S.P., 170, 173, 199 Nakanishi, Don T., 58 naturalization, 1, 21-22, 52, 56-58, 62, 82, 102, 110, 169 Neckerman, Catherine, 24 Nee, Victor, 3, 22, 26-27, 70, 72, 101, 105-107, 109, 112-113 neighborhoods (quality, housing prices), 2, 6, 42-44, 49, 76, 128, 139, 141, 144-147, 149154, 158-160, 162-167, 179, 201, 211, 213-214 Nelson, Gloria Luz M., 71 New York City, 24, 173, 179, 184185 occupations (also occupational mobility), 5, 10, 16, 25, 31, 37, 41-44, 46-47, 49, 52-53, 61-62, 65-68, 70-71, 73-79, 81-84, 8693, 95, 97-107, 113-114, 116118, 121-135, 139, 148-154, 159, 161, 163-164, 178-179,

249 183-193, 195, 201, 205-210, 215 Okihiro, Gary, 16, 25, 102, 105, 171 Oliver, Melvin, 141 Ong, Paul M., 58, 110 Orange County, CA, 11, 38, 44, 45, 52, 54-55, 108, 155-156, 161-162, 179, 204 Pagnini, D.L., 170, 173, 199 pan-ethnicity (also pan-Asian identity), 2, 7, 169-170, 175178, 181-182, 184-186, 188189, 193-199, 201, 214, 216217 Pang, Gin Yong, 175, 176, 198 Pang, Valerie Ooka, 3 parents, 18, 20, 44, 48, 72, 175, 198, 205, 207-208, 217-218 Park, Kyeyoung, 101 Park, Robert E., 1, 22 Passel, Jeffrey, 173 picture brides, 17 Pinderhughes, Raquel, 69 political participation, 57, 197 popular culture, 35, 59, 176-177, 215 Portes, Alejandro, 1, 3, 24-25, 56, 60, 68-69, 100-102, 105, 107109, 111-113, 132, 140 poverty, 10, 19, 40-44, 46, 49, 61, 62, 66-67, 69, 75-77, 95, 97, 113, 131-132, 138-139, 148154, 159, 163, 164, 167, 176 prejudice, 16, 18, 24, 59, 69, 138, 201 public assistance (also welfare), 40, 52, 57, 69 Quillian, Lincoln, 110

250 Raijman, Rebecca, 112 refugee, 12, 20, 37, 45, 48, 51, 53, 56, 62-63, 72, 76, 78, 81, 9799, 155, 167, 169, 198-199, 205-206, 218 Reimers, Cordelia W., 2, 69 residential segregation, 6, 112, 137-139, 141-142, 144-146, 148, 154-155, 165, 167, 201, 211-213, 218 Roach, Elizabeth, 113 Roncek, Dennis W., 147, 160, 162 Root, Maria P.P., 172, 176 Rosenfeld, Michael, 176 Rosenstein, Carolyn, 101, 102, 106, 111 Rumbaut, Ruben, 3, 8, 24-25, 4748, 51-52, 56, 58, 60, 68-69, 72, 100, 102, 140 Rutledge, Paul J., 3, 8, 35, 37, 52, 58 Saenz, Rogelio, 172, 177-178 Saito, Leland, 24, 57, 141, 143, 146 Sakamoto, Arthur, 72 San Francisco, 11, 54-55, 73, 108, 111-122, 142, 155, 157, 179, 209 San Jose, 11, 52, 54, 55, 108, 155, 157, 159, 161-162, 179 Sandefur, Gary D., 141 Sanders, Jimy, 70, 72, 101, 105107, 109, 112-113 Sassen, Saskia, 67, 68, 103 Scanlan, John A., 35, 45, 50, 59 Schneider, Mark, 145 Schoen, Robert, 173 Schwartz, Joseph, 173 second generation, 5, 11, 24, 47, 57, 65, 72-73, 77, 84-85, 9192, 101, 103, 116, 124-125, 129-130, 133, 142, 144, 176, 178-179, 182-195, 197-199, 208, 212, 216

Index segregation, 6, 112, 137-139, 141142, 144-146, 148, 154-155, 165, 167, 201, 211-213, 218 Sernau, Scott, 72, 112-113 Shibutani, Tamotsu, 27 Shinagawa, Larry Hajime, 175176, 198 social capital, 7, 11, 25, 66, 73-74, 76, 78, 81, 133, 178 Song, Miri, 107 Steinberg, Stephen, 3, 24 Steinmetz, George, 102 Stepick, Alex, 69 stereotypes, 174 Stoltzfus, Brenda, 49 Strand, Paul J., 72 Stults, Brian J., 93, 112, 139-140, 142-143 Sturdevant, Saundra Pollack, 49 suburbanization, 2, 6, 8, 23, 26, 28, 65, 137-146, 148, 154-155, 158, 165-167, 169, 201, 211214, 218 Sullivan, Teresa A., 68, 103, 105 Takaki, Ron, 16, 19, 102, 105, 170 Takeuchi, David T., 70 Takezawa, Yasuko, 173 Tang, Joyce, 30, 70-71 Tchen, John Kuo Wei, 170 Thomas, Melvin E., 27, 141 Thomas, William I., 47 Thompson, Jennifer, 72 Tienda, Marta, 112 Tong, Yasmin, 110 Tran, Thanh V., 50 Tseng, Yen-Fen, 105 U.S. Census Bureau, 6-8, 40, 4243, 48, 106, 110, 116, 144-145, 148, 169 U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 36, 37, 45, 58 Uneke, Okori, 106

Index unemployment, 25, 40, 44, 47, 49, 53, 62, 76 Valenzuela, Abel, 146 Viet Nam War, 5, 11, 29, 34, 49, 59, 203, 214 Waldinger, Roger, 68, 101, 103, 108, 110-111, 177 war brides, 174 Waters, Mary, 1, 3, 23, 170, 199

Wetzel, James R., 68 White, Michael J., 141-143 Whites (racial group), 2, 7, 16, 1819, 24, 28, 48-49, 69-71, 97, 138, 140-143, 145-146, 149152, 163-164, 166, 169-175, 178, 180-189, 191-199, 201, 214, 216, 218 Whitmore, John K., 3, 37, 50, 100 Wilkes, Rima, 142 Wilson, Kenneth, 104, 111 Wilson, William Julius, 25, 68, 139 women, 5, 8-9, 16, 18, 49, 67, 7072, 86, 88, 90, 93, 98, 108, 126-128, 131, 147, 159, 171175, 181-182, 184, 188-189, 197-198, 202, 207, 209, 216

251 Wong, Eugene F., 110 Wong, Morrison, 70 Woo, Deborah, 71, 142 Wright, Eric Olin, 102 Wu, Diana Ting Liu, 71 Xenos, Peter, 70 Xie, Yu, 72 Yamanaka, Keiko, 70-1 Yancey, William, 23 Yang, Philip Q., 72, 142 Yinger, John, 139 Yoon, In-Jin, 101, 105, 109-110 Yu, Ji-Yeon, 49 Yum Henry, 174 Yung, Judy, 175 Zai, Liang, 172-174 Zeng, Zhen, 72 Zhang, Wenquan, 21, 107-108, 111-113, 140, 143-144 Zhou, Min, 1, 24, 37, 45, 48, 5052, 58-60, 68, 72, 100-101, 103-105, 107-109, 111-113, 140, 196 Zia, Helen, 171 Znaniecki, Florian, 47

Asian American Assimilation: Ethnicity, Immigration, and Socioeconomic Attainment (The New Americans)

Ethnicity and assimilation

Nativism and Immigration: Regulating the American Dream (New Americans: Recent Immigration and American Society)

Immigration, Acculturation, And Health: The Mexican Diaspora (The New Americans: Recent Immigration and American Society)

Ethnic Americans: Immigration and American Society

Asian American Youth: Culture, Identity and Ethnicity

Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration

Race, Ethnicity, Immigration, and Women

Mental Health Among Taiwanese Americans: Gender, Immigration, And Transnational Struggles (The New Americans: Recent Immigration and American Society)

The American Dream--For Men Only?: Gender, Immigration, and the Assimilation of Israelis in the United States (New Americans)

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants: E Pluribus Unions (The New Americans: Recent Immigration and American Society)

Iranian Immigrants in Los Angeles: The Role of Networks and Economic Integration (The New Americans: Recent Immigration and American Society) (The New ... Recent Immigration and American Society)

Health and Behavior among Immigrant Youth (The New Americans: Recent Immigration and American Society)

Immigration and Crime: The Effects of Immigration on Criminal Behavior (The New Americans)

Sporting Nationalisms: Identity, Ethnicity, Immigration and Assimilation (Cass Series--Sport in the Global Society, 6)

The Politics of Citizenship of Mexican Migrants (The New Americans: Recent Immigration and American Society)

Immigration and American Religion

Immigration, Race and Ethnicity in Contemporary France

Mexican Immigrant Parents Advocating School Reform (The New Americans: Recent Immigration and American Society)

Bridges and Barriers: Earnings and Occupational Attainment Among Immigrants (New Americans) (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

The Korean Americans (The New Americans)

The Soviet Jewish Americans (The New Americans)

The Dominican Americans (The New Americans)

The West Indian Americans (The New Americans)

Encyclopedia of American Immigration

Opening the doors: immigration, ethnicity, and globalization in Japan

Unequal Origins: Immigrant Selection and the Education of the Second Generation (The New Americans: Recent Immigration and American Society)

The History of Ethiopian Immigrants and Refugees in America, 1900-2000 (The New Americans: Recent Immigration and American Society)

Asian American Assimilation: Ethnicity, Immigration, and Socioeconomic Attainment (The New Americans)

Ethnicity and assimilation

Nativism and Immigration: Regulating the American Dream (New Americans: Recent Immigration and American Society)

Immigration, Acculturation, And Health: The Mexican Diaspora (The New Americans: Recent Immigration and American Society)

Ethnic Americans: Immigration and American Society

Asian American Youth: Culture, Identity and Ethnicity

Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration

Race, Ethnicity, Immigration, and Women

Mental Health Among Taiwanese Americans: Gender, Immigration, And Transnational Struggles (The New Americans: Recent Immigration and American Society)

The American Dream--For Men Only?: Gender, Immigration, and the Assimilation of Israelis in the United States (New Americans)

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants: E Pluribus Unions (The New Americans: Recent Immigration and American Society)

Iranian Immigrants in Los Angeles: The Role of Networks and Economic Integration (The New Americans: Recent Immigration and American Society) (The New ... Recent Immigration and American Society)

Health and Behavior among Immigrant Youth (The New Americans: Recent Immigration and American Society)

Immigration and Crime: The Effects of Immigration on Criminal Behavior (The New Americans)

Sporting Nationalisms: Identity, Ethnicity, Immigration and Assimilation (Cass Series--Sport in the Global Society, 6)

The Politics of Citizenship of Mexican Migrants (The New Americans: Recent Immigration and American Society)

Immigration and American Religion

Immigration, Race and Ethnicity in Contemporary France

Mexican Immigrant Parents Advocating School Reform (The New Americans: Recent Immigration and American Society)

Bridges and Barriers: Earnings and Occupational Attainment Among Immigrants (New Americans) (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

The Korean Americans (The New Americans)

The Soviet Jewish Americans (The New Americans)

The Dominican Americans (The New Americans)

The West Indian Americans (The New Americans)

Encyclopedia of American Immigration

Opening the doors: immigration, ethnicity, and globalization in Japan

Unequal Origins: Immigrant Selection and the Education of the Second Generation (The New Americans: Recent Immigration and American Society)

The History of Ethiopian Immigrants and Refugees in America, 1900-2000 (The New Americans: Recent Immigration and American Society)

Recommend Documents