Latinos in ethnic enclaves: immigrant workers and the competition for jobs

LATINO COMMUNITIES edited by A N T O I N E T T E SEDILLO LOPEZ U N I V E R S I T OYF N E WM E X I C O A GARLAND SERIES...

Author: Stephanie Bohon

10 downloads 369 Views 5MB 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

LATINO COMMUNITIES

edited by A N T O I N E T T E SEDILLO LOPEZ U N I V E R S I T OYF N E WM E X I C O

A GARLAND SERIES Copyright 2001 by Stephanie Bohon

LATINOS IN ETHNIC ENCLAVES

STEPHANIE BOHON

GARLAND PUBLISHING, INC.

N E WY O R K & L O N D O N/ 2 0 0 1 Copyright 2001 by Stephanie Bohon

Published in 2001 by Garland Publishing Inc. 29 West 35th Street New York, NY 10001 Garland is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group Copyright O 2001 by Stephanie Bohon All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bohon, Stephanie. Latinos in ethnic enclaves : immigrant workers and the competition for jobs / Stephanie Bohon. p. cm. - (Latino communities) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8153-3765-5 (alk. paper) 1. Hispanic Americans-Employment. 2. Hispanic Americans. I. Title. 11. Series. HD8081.H7 B64 2000 331.6'238073-dc21 00-039314

Printed on acid-free, 250-year-life paper Manufactured in the United States of America Copyright 2001 by Stephanie Bohon

To Gordon

Copyright 2001 by Stephanie Bohon

Contents

List of Tables Acknowledgments 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Latino Immigrants and Ethnic Enclaves Segmented Assimilation and Queuing Ethnic Enclaves and Enclave Theory Data and Methods Occupational Attainment within Latino Enclaves Discrimination and Competition among Long-Term Immigrants Discrimination and Competition among Recent Immigrants Conclusions

Appendices Notes Bibliography


List of Tables

1. Ethnic Enclaves in the United States 2. Sample by Place of Origin by Place of Work in a Latino Enclave (Long-Term Immigrants) 3. Sample by Place of Origin by Place of Work in an Asian Enclave (Long-Term Immigrants) 4. Sample by Place of Origin by Place of Work in a Non-Enclave Location (Long-Term Immigrants) 5. Sample by Place of Origin by Place of Work in a Latino Enclave (Recent Immigrants) 6. Sample by Place of Origin by Place of Work in an Asian Enclave (Recent Immigrants) 7. Sample by Place of Origin by Place of Work in a Non-Enclave Location (Recent Immigrants) 8. Percent of Long-Term Immigrants in Commonly Held Occupations by Place of Origin 9. Percent of Recent Immigrants in Commonly Held Occupations by Place of Origin 10. Average Male Socioeconomic Index Scores (and Standard Deviations) by Place of Origin by Place of Work (Long-Term Immigrants) 11. Average Male Socioeconomic Index Scores (and Standard Deviations) by Place of Origin by Place of Work (Recent Immigrants) 12. Independent Variables Used in This Study 13. Descriptive Statistics for the Jersey City PMSA (Long-Term Immigrants)


List of Tables 14. Descriptive Statistics for the Los Angeles-Long Beach PMSA (Long-Term Immigrants) 15. Descriptive Statistics for the Miami-Hialeah PMSA (Long-Term Immigrants) 16. Descriptive Statistics for the New York City PMSA (Long-Term Immigrants) 17. Impact of Country of Origin and Other Endowments on Occupational Attainment (MSEI) for Long-Term Latin American Immigrants in Latino Enclaves 18. Descriptive Statistics for the Miami-Hialeah PMSA (Recent Immigrants) 19. Descriptive Statistics for the New York City PMSA (Recent Immigrants) 20. Impact of Country of Origin and Other Factors on the Occupational Attainment (MSEI) of Recent Latin American Immigrants in Latino Enclaves 21. Summary of the Theoretical Implications of the Empirical Findings 22. Descriptive Statistics by Place of Origin for Long-Term Immigrant Workers in Latino Enclaves 23. Descriptive Statistics by Place of Origin for Long-Term Immigrant Workers in Asian Enclaves 24. Descriptive Statistics by Place of Origin for Long-Term Immigrant Workers in Non-enclave Areas 25. Parameter Estimates and Standard Errors of the OLS Model Regressing Occupational Attainment (MSEI) on Place of Work (Long-Term Immigrants) 26. Decomposition of Average Differences in MSEI between LongTerm Mexicans and Other Latin American Immigrants by Place of Work 27. Descriptive Statistics by Place of Origin for Recent Immigrants Working in Latino Enclave Areas 28. Descriptive Statistics by Place of Origin for Recent Immigrants Working in Asian Enclave Areas 29. Descriptive Statistics by Place of Origin for Recent Immigrants Working in Non-Enclave Areas 30. Impact of Place of Work and Other Factors on the Occupational Attainments (MSEI) of Recent Immigrants


List of Tables Decomposition of Mean Differences in MSEI between Recent Mexican and Other Latin American Immigrants by Place of Work Sample Comparison by Place of Work and Place of Residence in Latino Enclaves (Long-Term Immigrants) Sample Comparison by Place of Work and Place of Residence in Asian Enclaves (Long-Term Immigrants) Sample Comparison by Place of Work and Place of Residence in a Non-Enclave Location (Long-Term Immigrants) Sample Comparison by Place of Work and Place of Residence in a Latino Enclave (Recent Immigrants) Sample Comparison by Place of Work and Place of Residence in an Asian Enclave (Recent Immigrants) Sample Comparison by Place of Work and Place of Residence in a Non-Enclave Location (Recent Immigrants) Regression Coefficients (and Standard Errors) by Place of Origin for Latino Enclave Workers Regression Coefficients (and Standard Errors) by Place of Origin for Asian Enclave Workers Regression Coefficients (and Standard Errors) by Place of Origin for Non-Enclave Workers Regression Coefficients (and Standard Errors) by Place of Origin for Latino Enclave Workers Regression Coefficients (and Standard Errors) by Place of Origin for Asian Enclave Workers Regression Coefficients (and Standard Errors) by Place of Origin for Non-Enclave Workers


Acknowledgments

I want to thank several individuals and organizations who made this project possible. Foremost among them is Gordon De Jong to whom this work is dedicated. He read and commented extensively on each chapter and provided valuable advice on shaping the manuscript. Other scholars who reviewed this piece in its various stages, offered suggestions for reorganization, and helped to strengthen the methodology include Leif Jensen, Craig Humphrey, and Barry Lee, Penn State University; Dan Lichter, Russell Sage Foundation; and Michael Erickson, Albertson College. My colleagues who shared resources and offered statistical consultation include Melonie Heron, Florida State University; and Julie Kraut, Centers for Disease Control. Additionally, I received financial support from the Population Research Institute and the sociology departments at Penn State, Ohio University, and the University of Georgia. Several of the staff at the Population Research Institute at Penn State University also contributed to this work by providing technical assistance. I owe a special debt to the members of the Computer Core, especially Paul Riggs, Joe Broniszewski, Don Genismore, and Michael Zimmerman. I am also grateful for Lisa Broniszewski and the other members of the Information Core. Many friends also supported me throughout the research and writing phase of this project. Bridget Gorman read much of this work, offered advice, and provided counseling and moral support throughout the entirety of this endeavor. Rod Crossland, Caroline Kapinus, and Chris Calienes listened to my frustrations and offered encouragement as did my parents, Don and Marianne Bohon. Finally, I am especially grateful to my husband, Michael Jarrett, who never minded my late hours, moved me across the country (twice), and provided intellectual and spiritual guidance throughout the writing of this work.


...

Xlll

Latinos in Ethnic Enclaves


CHAPTER ONE

Latino Immigrants and Ethnic Enclaves

The changing composition of immigrant flows to the United States in the last half century has forced sociologists to reevaluate classical assimilation theory. Many researchers today doubt the ability of Latin American immigrants and their offspring to move through the same educational and occupational channels that Eastern European immigrants did in order to achieve economic success commensurate with average white Americans (Alba, 1990; Borjas, 1986; Denton & Massey, 1988; Glazer, 1993; Kao & Tienda, 1995; Portes & Bach, 1985; Portes & Zhou, 1995; Waldinger, 1993; Wallace, 1986). As a consequence, scholarly interest is increasing in adaptation barriers and alternative forms of economic attainment for these immigrants. With the exception of Cubans, Latin American immigrants in the U.S. face a life-long disadvantaged economic position relative to the native, non-Latino white population. While some would argue that the reduced success of these immigrant groups has not been demonstrated (Chiswick, 1980), more recent work refutes this notion (Bor~as,1991; Gurak, 1987). While unemployment is low among most Latin American immigrant groups, the jobs many take in the U.S. result in significant downward mobility (Stepick & Portes, 1986; Waldinger, 1997a). Some economists (e.g., Borjas, 1985, 1986, 1991), contend that the seeming inability of new immigrants to readily adapt to the U S . economy is directly related to changes in the quality of immigrant streams. Many scholars recognize that recent immigrants may have more difficulty gaining good jobs in the U S . market because they lack the job experience, education, and training necessary to compete with native workers (Aldrich & Waldinger, 1990; Borjas, 1985, 1986, 1991; Glazer, 1993; Light, 1984; Portes & Zhou, 1992; Tienda & Wilson, 1992; Waldinger, Ward, & Aldrich, 1985). It has been argued that these same


4


limitations also restrict opportunities for self-employment by limiting access to capital (Borjas, 1986, 1990; Light, 1984). These arguments, which emphasize a human capital approach to adaptation, have been called into question by more recent research that brings new data to bear on the contention that individual characteristics can account for all of the difference between native and immigrant economic attainment (Castile, 1994; Duleep & Regets, 1996; Evans, 1989; Lindstrom & Massey, 1994; Massey, 1995; Min, 1987; Sanders & Nee, 1996; Waldinger, 1989). In particular, the general view that recent migrants are disproportionately drawn from an unskilled work force or that job skills acquired in the sending country wholly predict future mobility has been under fire lately. For example, two recent studies of the Latin American immigrant population show that it is surprisingly diverse and includes entrepreneurs, professionals, technicians and other skilled workers (Duleep & Regets, 1996; Portes & Grosfoguel, 1994). At the same time, studies such as Wallace's (1986) examination of Central Americans in California demonstrates that even immigrants with relatively high human capital may have difficulty achieving occupational success beyond that typically experienced by minority groups. As a consequence, more researchers are eschewing the human capital framework to explore structural factors such as race, housing opportunities, and industrial diversity that have already proven to be important in the adaptation process of Cuban and Mexican immigrants (e.g., Portes & Zhou, 1992; Wilson & Martin, 1982). One of the areas of scholarly interest in structural adaptation mechanisms is the ethnic enclave, seen by many researchers to offer an alternative route to immigrant adaptation around structural barriers. For the purposes of this research, an ethnic enclave is a metropolitan area characterized by a concentration of businesses owned and operated by immigrants from the same country of origin, or their direct descendants (Logan, Alba & McNulty, 1994).' Immigrants often fare well in enclaves because most jobs do not require good English language skills or high levels of education (Bailey & Waldinger, 1991; Logan, Alba & McNulty, 1994; Min, 1987; Waldinger, 1989; Wilson & Martin, 1982). Enclaves also offer many opportunities for self-employment, since there is local demand for ethnically defined goods, and immigrants have access to lending capital not readily available elsewhere (Aldrich & Waldinger, 1990; Evans, 1989; Kim, Huhr, & Fernandez, 1989; Light, 1984; Min, 1987; Portes & Bach, 1985; Portes & Stepick, 1993). Current enclave studies, however, focus on those ethnic groups that own or work in the largest proportion of minority businesses. Almost no attention has been paid to other enclave workers who share a native language and a similar culture, economic background, and immigration experience with the dominant



5

enclave group but have emigrated from a different c o ~ n t r y .In~ short, the importance of ethnicity in an ethnic enclave has not been directly assessed. The current research that does focus on ascribed status relationships in the enclave has examined intra-group differences between immigrants from the same sending country (Kim, Huhr & Fernandez, 1989; Light, Sabagh, Bozorgmehr, and Der-Martirosian, 1993), racial differences among immigrants (Portes & Grosfoguel, 1994; Stepick & Portes, 1986), and differences between immigrants and native blacks (Portes & Zhou, 1992, 1993; Wilson & Martin, 1982). These studies have focused on racial discrimination (e.g., the attainment of black Caribbeans versus African-Americans) and class exploitation among immigrants who share the same country of origin (e.g., competition among different Iranian sub-groups). While these studies extend our knowledge of ethnic enclaves, sociologists have not examined the impact of inter-ethnic interactions on the economic well-being of non-coethnic workers (Model & Ladipo, 1996) .3 Another issue that has been left largely unexplored in the enclave literature is occupational attainment. As more and more immigrants enter the United States, job availability has become a primary concern of policy makers (Model & Eadipo, 1996). The issue of good jobs and who gets them becomes particularly important as many new unskilled workers enter labor markets making the transition from manufacturing to service economies (Waldinger, 1997b). Questions left unanswered by current ethnic enclave and occupational attainment studies include: what is the importance of enclave context on the occupational attainment of Latin American immigrants from various sending countries? Does the enclave promote economic adaptation for all immigrant groups or just for the dominant enclave group? What impact does time since immigration have on the labor market status of non-coethnic workers? Does time since immigration affect occupational attainment differently for workers who share a country of origin with the dominant enclave group and those who do not? Does the national origin of the dominant enclave group affect the occupational attainment of non-coethnic workers? Does the national origin of the non-coethnic group affect the economic adaptation of workers inside the enclave regardless of their human capital, household characteristics, and other endowments? Do the occupational attainment patterns of immigrants in same language, similar culture enclaves vary from the patterns of occupational attainment for immigrants in other types of ethnic enclaves? Finally, can noncoethnic immigrants who share traits with the dominant enclave group expect to acquire jobs similar to those of the dominant enclave group, or will they be retained in lower status occupations?


6


The research proposed here will fill the gap in the existing literature on ethnic enclave economies by exploring the outcomes of coethnic versus noncoethnic workers. It will also explore occupational attainment within the enclave context.

BACKGROUND AND THEORY The formulation of hypotheses regarding the occupational attainment of noncoethnic workers in enclave and non-enclave economies necessitates an examination of both the development of enclave literature and an examination of two competing theories regarding immigrant economic adaptation: segmented assimilation and queuing theory. Segmented assimilation, as it was originally conceived by Portes and Zhou (1993), is based on the idea that different immigrants groups are likely to take on the characteristics of native ethnic and racial groups to which they are the most similar rather than mirroring nonLatino, white Americans. Haitian immigrants, for example, would become more like African-Americans as they adapt to the U S . economy over time. Several studies have demonstrated this segmented assimilation phenomenon for secondgeneration immigrants (Denton & Massey, 1988; Fernandez-Kelly & Schauffler, 1994; Gans, 1992; Kao & Tienda, 1995; Portes & Zhou, 1993). Segmented assimilation may pose the threat of downward mobility for some Latino groups (Rumbaut, 1997). Wallace (1986), for example, shows that Central American immigrants to California earn wages roughly equivalent to Mexicans, despite the fact that Central American immigrants, on average, have much higher human capital, including more white collar work experience and relatively higher levels of education. Under the theory of segmented assimilation, immigrants who share the same human capital characteristics as enclave workers should eventually demonstrate employment patterns similar to the dominant ethnic group from the same sending continent or broad geographic region. In practical terms that means that, in the case of Miami for example, all Latin American immigrants will become more like Cubans over time, and those groups with the highest levels of human capital (i.e., those most like the Cubans, such as Nicaraguans) will adapt at an accelerated pace.4 While segmented assimilation is one possible outcome for Latinos in an ethnic enclave, another possibility is queuing. In the simplest terms, queuing theory suggests that when a group is relatively large, it dominates the occupational hierarchy. Since there are a finite number of high prestige Qobs, when one of these jobs becomes available, it will be filled by another member of the dominant group. In short, good jobs are rationed according to a queuing mechanism, and where a person is in the queue depends largely on ascribed



7

characteristics (Rich, 1995; Roos & Jones, 1993; Roos & Reskin, 1992; Sakamoto & Chen, 1991; Sakamoto & Powers, 1995).5 While queuing theory has generally been used to explain barriers to employment and occupational attainment for women and racial minorities (Roos & Jones, 1993; Rich, 1995; Sakamoto & Chen, 1991), there is no reason to think that queuing would not occur to immigrants in an enclave situation. Indeed, some argue that the enclave offers opportunities for exploitation unparalleled in other labor markets (Bonacich, 1987). Since, by definition, one ethnic group has supremacy in an enclave setting, there is a reasonable chance that members of that ethnic group will discriminate in favor of their fellow expatriates. It is possible that escaping the enclave offers few better options for immigrants, however, since queuing may also occur in the wider local labor market, as well. Queuing theory suggests that country of origin is the most important characteristic for determining labor market status in an ethnic enclave; therefore, there should be marked differences between the occupational attainment patterns of the dominant enclave group and other immigrant groups. Findings that support segmented assimilation, however, will show that non-coethnic workers in the enclave experience occupational attainment levels similar to the dominant enclave group with country of origin showing little or no effect once human capital, household characteristics, and other factors are taken into account.

HYPOTHESES Hypotheses regarding the effects of the enclave on the economic adaptation of non-coethnic immigrants are markedly different depending upon whether they are predicated on segmented assimilation or queuing theory. Segmented assimilation suggests inter-ethnic cooperation hypotheses, whereby immigrants who share a native language, similar culture, comparable economic backgrounds, and similar immigration experiences will hire and preferentially promote one another regardless of differing countries of origin. Cuban business owners in Miami, for example, will make hiring decisions based on human capital factors from among a pool of all Latin American immigrants, not just other Cubans. Queuing theory, on the other hand, suggests a set of inter-ethnic competition hypotheses, since country of origin has a profound effect on where immigrants are in the job queue. Members of the dominant enclave group, according to queuing theory, will always prefer to hire and promote immigrants from their own country of origin, giving little or no consideration to job experience or other human capital factors. Where other immigrants fit into the queue, then, depends largely upon how workers from their country of origin are viewed by members of the dominant group. Since there is no reason, a priori, to accept queuing Copyright 2001 by Stephanie Bohon


8

theory in favor of segmented assimilation, or vice-versa, a number of competing hypotheses are postulated. Adaptation Within Latino Enclaves The first set of hypotheses relevant to this study examine the question of whether or not national origin makes a difference to the economic adaptation of immigrants. That is, the first question relates to the occupational attainment of other immigrants relative to the dominant enclave group. Because assimilation is a lengthy process, the hypotheses pertain to immigrants who have been in the U S . for at least half a decade. Question: Will Latino immigrants working in metropolitan areas with Latino enclaves demonstrate lower than or the same occupational attainment as immigrants from the dominant enclave group after living in the United States for more than five years? Hypothesis H l a . After more than five years in the U S . , Latino immigrants working in metropolitan areas with Latino enclaves will demonstrate significantly lower occupational attainment, on average, than members of the dominant enclave group. Alternative Hypothesis H l b . After more than five years in the U.S., noncoethnic immigrants working in metropolitan areas with Latino enclaves will demonstrate average occupational attainment not significantly different from the dominant enclave group.

These alternative hypotheses suggest, on the one hand, that Latino enclaves create areas where Latin American immigrants can benefit from unique labor market opportunities, and the spirit of interethnic cooperation and other adaptation processes lead to segmented a ~ s i m i l a t i o n .This ~ possibility is captured in hypothesis Hlb. On the other hand, the presence of a large Latin American labor market controlled by members of one ethnic group may lead to interethnic competition where national origin differences are exacerbated, and members of the dominant enclave group may create a labor market queue giving preferential positions to members of their own group. This possibility is captured in hypothesis Hla. While enclave theory, segmented assimilation, and queuing allow for the clear development of testable hypotheses regarding immigrant adaptation for immigrants who have been in the labor market for some time, developing hypotheses about more recent immigrants is more difficult. It is possible that Copyright 2001 by Stephanie Bohon


9

since both coethnic and non-coethnic workers offer a cheap source of needed labor in the short-run, there is no difference between their employment outcomes. That is, employers may choose immigrant workers based on their human capital alone. On the other hand, employers may preferentially hire members of their own country of origin group either out of a sense of nationalistic loyalty or because these workers are most likely to be known or related to other workers at that place of employment. The first possibility suggests a segmented assimilation outcome, while the second suggests queuing. Given these possible divergent outcomes, alternative hypotheses are postulated concerning the occupational attainment of recent immigrants. Question: Will Latino immigrants working in metropolitan areas with Latino enclaves demonstrate lower than o r the same occupational attainment as immigrants from the dominant enclave group if they have resided in the U.S. for five years or less? Hypothesis H2a. Recent Latin American immigrants (those entering the country in 1985 or later) working in metropolitan areas with Latino enclaves will report occupational attainment significantly lower, on average, than that of recent Immigrants in the dominant enclave group. Alternative Hypothesis H2b. Recent Latin American immigrants working in metropolitan areas with Latino enclaves will report occupational attainment not significantly different from that of recent immigrants in the dominant enclave group.

Adaptation Across Labor Market Contexts The analysis undertaken here also lends itself to an examination of the impact of varying labor market contexts on the occupational attainment of immigrants. Latin American immigrants do not have to work in Latino enclave areas. They may, for example, choose to work in Chinese or Japanese enclave areas, or they may choose to work in areas without ethnic enclaves. The outcome of such a destination choice for some immigrant outcomes has been strenuously debated (e.g., see Jensen & Portes, 1992; Portes & Jensen, 1992; Sanders & Nee, 1992). Two sets of competing hypotheses about the economic outcome of both longterm and recent immigrant in these different types of contexts are postulated. Question: Will Latino immigrants working in metropolitan areas with Latino enclaves demonstrate higher or the same occupational attainment as Latino


Latinos in Ethnic Enclaves immigrants working in Asian enclaves and non-enclave areas after living in the U.S. for more than five years? Hypothesis H3a. Comparing across economic enclave and non-enclave contexts, Latin American immigrants in metropolitan areas with Latino enclaves will have higher occupational attainment after five years in the U.S. than Latin American immigrants in areas with Asian enclaves or non-enclave areas, holding constant measurable endowment characteristics. Alternative Hypothesis H3b.Comparing across economic enclave and nonenclave contexts, Latin American immigrants in metropolitan areas with Latino enclaves will have occupational attainment after five years in the U S . not significantly different from Latin American immigrants in areas with Asian enclaves or non-enclave areas, holding constant measurable endowment characteristics. Question: Will recent Latino immigrants (residing in the U S . for five years or less) working in metropolitan areas with Latino enclaves demonstrate higher or the same occupational attainment as Latino immigrants working in Asian enclaves and non-enclave areas? Hypothesis H4a.Comparing across economic enclave and non-enclave contexts, recent Latin American immigrants in metropolitan areas with Latino enclaves will have higher occupational attainment than Latin American immigrants in areas with Asian enclaves or non-enclave areas, holding constant measurable endowment characteristics. Alternative Hypothesis H4b.Comparing across economic enclave and nonenclave contexts, recent Latin American immigrants in metropolitan areas with Latino enclaves will have occupational attainment not significantly different from Latin American immigrants in areas with Asian enclaves or non-enclave areas, holding constant measurable endowment characteristics.

Hypothesis H3a and H4a suggests that, for members of the dominant enclave group, the enclave offers advantages not found elsewhere. These immigrants can obtain jobs and job experience without a waiting period to learn English, establish employment networks, and learn the cultural skills necessary for a successful job search in the mainstream economy (Bailey & Waldinger, 1991; Logan, Alba & McNulty, 1994; Portes & Bach, 1995; Portes & Stepick, 1993; Waldinger, 1993). Non-coethnic workers, however, do not share these



11

advantages. Hypotheses H3b and H4b suggests that the Latino enclave equally benefits all Latin American immigrant groups. This may be because discrimination in the larger labor market leads to the creation of a pan-ethnic identity, Latino, which supersedes national origin distinctions. The ethnic enclave may promote nationalism or a heightened awareness of intragroup differences. Members of the dominant enclave group may view their place and people as superior to that of other Latin Americans, so they may discriminate against them more than would otherwise be the case. The consequence of this would be increased interethnic competition (or greater queuing). The ethnic enclave may, however, create opportunities for all Latin American immigrants, and those immigrants may experience less barriers to attainment than in other labor market contexts. In order to test this, it is possible to compare the average amount of difference in occupational attainment due to discrimination across the various labor market contexts for both recent and longterm immigrant^.^ Question: Will longer-term Latino immigrants (i.e., those living in the United States for more than five years) working in metropolitan areas with Latino enclaves experience less or the same amount of discrimination in job hiring and promotion as Latino immigrants working in Asian enclave or non-enclave areas? Hypothesis H5a. Comparing across economic enclaves and non-enclave contexts, discrimination as a determinant of occupational attainment differences among longer term Latin American immigrant groups is lower in metropolitan areas with Latino economic enclaves and greater in areas with Asian enclaves and non-enclave labor markets. Alternative Hypothesis H5b.Comparing across economic enclaves and nonenclave contexts, discrimination as a determinant of occupational attainment differences among longer-term Latin American immigrant groups is no different in metropolitan areas with Latino economic enclaves than in areas with Asian enclaves and non-enclave labor markets. Question: Will recent Latino immigrants (i.e., those living in the United States for five years or less) working in metropolitan areas with Latino enclaves experience less or the same amount of discrimination in job hiring and promotion as recent Latino immigrants working in Asian enclave or nonenclave areas?


Latinos in Ethnic Enclaves Hypothesis H6a. Comparing across economic enclaves and non-enclave contexts, discrimination as a determinant of occupational attainment differences among recent Latin American immigrants is lower in metropolitan areas with Latino economic enclaves and greater in areas with Asian enclaves and nonenclave labor markets. Alternative Hypothesis H6b.Comparing across economic enclaves and nonenclave contexts, discrimination as a determinant of occupational attainment differences among recent Latin American immigrants is no different in metropolitan areas with Latino economic enclaves than in areas with Asian enclaves and non-enclave labor markets.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO PRIOR RESEARCH AND THEORY This work examines occupational attainment as a form of economic adaptation among non-black Latin American immigrant workers in metropolitan areas with Latino and Asian enclaves and in selected metropolitan areas without enclaves. Different national origin groups are compared within and across labor markets. The importance of this examination and comparison is that it offers valuable contributions to the scientific and public policy debate concerning Latin American immigrants' economic adaptation in several ways. First, existing research and theory on the enclave as an adaptive mechanism is extended by exploring its effects on the occupational attainment of immigrant workers who do not share a national origin with the dominant enclave group. Second, a gap is filled in comparative attainment studies that examine the effects of ethnicity on occupational attainment but do not assess the impact of the enclave economy on these outcome^.^ Third, a comparison of segmented assimilation and queuing theory is offered as a way of determining the best model for exploring economic outcomes for Latin American immigrants in the United States. This study contributes to existing research on Latin American immigrant adaptation, in general, and the ethnic enclave, in particular. At the most general level, this study offers an examination of the importance of national origin on occupational attainment in metropolitan areas with ethnic enclaves among immigrants from the various sending areas in Latin America by examining, for the first time, the impact of inter-ethnic competition versus inter-ethnic cooperation on a vital area of immigrant adaptation. By comparing the occupational attainment patterns of immigrants from Mexico, Cuba, Nicaragua, the rest of the Central American isthmus, Colombia, and the rest of mainland South America valuable information can be gathered about competition and cooperation in labor force processes, irrespective of the Copyright 2001 by Stephanie Bohon


13

impact of human capital and household characteristics. Specifically, this study offers a unique opportunity to directly test the theory that the enclave eliminates the need for English fluency and high levels of education for economic success. This study also offers new insight into issues of discrimination and exploitation within the enclave context. Bonacich (1988) has argued that the enclave is a potential source of exploitation of both family members and other co-ethnic immigrants as workers become dependent on the enclave and fail to learn the skills needed for success in the mainstream (and presumably higher paying) labor market. At the same time, Portes & Zhou (1993) have argued that segmented assimilation should be the expected outcome for new immigrant groups. This study offers a better understanding of the potential for discrimination and exploitation of other immigrant groups within the enclave. More importantly, it tests the competing hypotheses that immigrants are more or less exploited in the non-enclave market as opposed to the enclave. Finally, this study contributes to the understanding of ethnic enclaves by offering a direct test of labor market effects on occupational attainment by examining occupational attainment outcomes in two different types of enclaves (Latino and Asian) as well as the non-enclave context. This is a unique contribution to the literature that, to date, has focused almost exclusively on wages and the transition to self-employment within a single enclave setting.


CHAPTER TWO

Segmented Assimilation and Queuing

Recent studies of income, occupational mobility, occupational attainment, home ownership and unemployment suggest that some groups in the U.S. do not assimilate (i.e., demonstrate characteristics similar to white Americans) even after considerable time and many generations, while some groups assimilate quickly (Alba & Logan, 1992; Portes & Zhou, 1993; Rumbaut, 1997). Groups like the Chinese and the Cubans appear to be particularly advantaged on some measures of incorporation while Puerto Ricans and Vietnamese, for example, appear particularly disadvantaged even after socioeconomic and human capital factors are taken into consideration (Alba & Logan, 1992). Furthermore, the conditions necessary for assimilation--such as economic expansion and reduction in immigrant flows--are less apparent in the U S . in recent years (Lindstrom & Massey , 1994). Occupational outcomes are a particularly important indicator of immigrant adaptation (Alba & Nee, 1997). If the environment they enter is typified by interethnic competition, immigrants from certain countries of origin may have more difficulty obtaining good jobs in the marketplace. If, however, the environment is typified by interethnic cooperation, national origin will not matter, and all immigrants can expect to do equally well. These alternative outcomes are posited based on segmented assimilation and queuing theory. However, the use of segmented assimilation to describe the experience of first generation immigrants and application of queuing theory to immigrant labor markets is an atypical use of these theories. Consequently, a further examination of both schools of thought is necessary in order to create a better understanding of the ways in which these theories can be applied to first generation immigrants' occupational attainment patterns.


16


SEGMENTED ASSIMILATION AND QUEUING THEORY The concept of segmented assimilation was first introduced by Alejandro Portes and Min Zhou in 1993, and it has been largely attributed to Zhou (DeWind & Kasinitz, 1997). Its development grew largely out of concern that new immigrants (i.e., Asians and Latin Americans) would not be incorporated into the U S . economic and social systems in the same way that Eastern European immigrants arriving at the turn of the century were (Alba & Logan, 1992). This fear was coupled with evidence that economic restructuring seemed to impact the assimilation experience of different groups in different ways (Alba & Nee, 1997; Portes & Zhou, 1993). This did not appear to bode well for newer immigrants. From these concerns stemmed fear of "second generation decline," or concern that the children and grandchildren of immigrants would fare worse economically than their parents due to the adoption of American attitudes coupled with barriers to minority attainment (Gans, 1992). Second generation decline is seen as inevitable by some because of the increased propensity of the first generation to maintain transnational business ties, the restructuring of the labor market, and widespread discrimination (Portes, 1997). This decline reflects the fact that some groups do not have the ability to shed ethnic identifiers over time, particularly if the identifiers are ascribed traits (Portes & Zhou, 1993). At the same time, as successive generations are exposed to American work ethics and American ideals, they are less willing to work in the low skilled, low paying industries that employed their parents or grandparents. An extreme typology of segmented assimilation was first offered by Portes and Borocz (1989) when they argued that the long-term outcomes for immigrants depended largely on conditions of exit, class origins, and reception contexts, and that the outcomes of the intersection of these three factors was placement into various market sectors including ghetto services, the mixed labor market, ethnic enclaves, mainstream small businesses and middleman minority markets. Four years later, Portes and Zhou (1993) published a more conservative typology of segmented assimilation where they argued that these same factors-exit conditions, class, and entry context--determined only the propensity for a group to experience straight-line assimilation, downward assimilation, or continued separation. In the simplest terms, the theory of segmented assimilation is an attempt to explain the differences between groups that eventually experience upward mobility (i.e., straight-line assimilation), groups that experience downward mobility over time, and groups that experience upward mobility, but only by maintaining strong ties to their cultural origins (Alba & Nee, 1997). Essentially, the theory indicates that immigrants tend to be incorporated into those native Copyright 2001 by Stephanie Bohon


17

groups they are most similar to. If the group they are most similar to is disadvantaged in the marketplace, then downward assimilation occurs. However, some groups have shown themselves to be particularly resistant to this and are able to maintain separation from the native group by consciously isolating their group and maintaining strong ties to the language and cultural practices of their native land (DeWind & Kasinitz, 1997; Rumbaut, 1997). Segmented assimilation assumes that different groups are incorporated into U S . society at different rates, through different means, and to different degrees (DeWind & Kasinitiz, 1997), and these differences do not stem from differential levels of human capital between groups, as some economists would suggest (Borjas, 1990; Haberfield, 1993). Segmented assimilation, in short, explains how new groups enter the stratification system (Zhou, 1997). Since immigrants today are more geographically concentrated and linguistically isolated than ever before (Massey, 1995), segmented assimilation offers a plausible model of immigrant incorporation. Segmented assimilation, however, is not a sure bet, since it ignores the salience and persistence of discrimination in all levels of our society (DeWind & Kasinitz, 1997). One assumption of segmented assimilation is that similar groups cannot be differentiated. For example, Salvadoran or Guatemalan immigrants in California are indistinguishable from U.S.-born Mexican-Americans, consequently, the immigrants will be incorporated into an amorphous Latino group (as shown by Wallace, 1986) or all immigrants will be assumed to be members of the largest group (in this case, Mexicans). As a consequence of this assumption, segmented assimilation has tended to focus on the adaptation of pan-ethnic groups such as Latinos, Asians, and blacks, rather than their national origin subgroups. However, many second and third generation Latinos and Asians living in the U S . today believe that first generation immigrants negatively impact their personal well-being (Johnson, Farrell & Guinn, 1997). And, since migration streams tend to be selective of place, they can threaten to change the class and ethnic character of a community (Clark, 1982; Johnson, Farrell, & Guinn, 1997; Tienda & Wilson, 1992). This threat or perceived threat can lead to discriminatory behavior by the established minority group who wants to maintain their way of life (Waters & Eschbach, 1995). One problem with the theory of segmented assimilation is that it discounts the possibility that native minority groups and established immigrant groups may work hard to erect barriers to keep new immigrants from incorporating into their society. Incorporation into the dominant minority group may not occur if the immigrant group is looked upon unfavorably by the population that controls the economic resources.


18


The concentration of immigrant populations in one place may also increase discrimination in other ways. Since an immigrant's destination decision is often based on networks rather than open labor market information, the influx of a sizeable new population into an area with a slow growing or stagnating economy creates greater competition for jobs. Such a climate breeds resentment among the native population who see the immigrants as a threat to their livelihood (Tienda & Lii, 1987). Support for such an effect can be seen in research such as Hansen and Cardenas' (1988) study that shows that people in non-border areas hold generally more favorable attitudes toward Mexican immigrant workers than people in the more immigrant-saturated border regions. If immigrants do not incorporate into the non-Latino white population and they also do not incorporate into the minority sub-cultures to which they are most alike, what is the outcome? Queuing theory offers a possible alternative to both straight line and segmented assimilation theory. Queuing theory is based on the idea that workers stand in an imaginary line to wait for good jobs. Place in the line is determined by some standard of desirability. The most desirable workers are at the front of the line, and the least desirable workers are at the end. When similar workers compete for the same jobs, groups that are viewed as more desirable gain preferential access to these jobs. For immigrants, the measure of desirability is usually race or national origin, and men and women "stand" in different queues (Model & Ladipo, 1996). In short, queuing theory explains how employers' prejudices can affect the marketplace (Model & Ladipo, 1996). This theory deviates from neoclassical economics by assuming that the supply and demand for good jobs does not necessarily determine the availability of these jobs or the wages paid. Under queuing, the number of available good jobs is relatively invariable (at least in the short run), and whether or not a person gets a job depends less on the supply of labor and more on their place in the queue (Sakamoto & Chen, 1991; Sakamoto & Powers, 1995). Under queuing, willingness to work for lower wages or under poorer conditions does not radically alter the probability of getting a good job (Sakamoto & Powers, 1995). Less desirable workers obtain good jobs only when the supply of more desirable workers has been exhausted (Model & Ladipo, 1 996). Queuing is also different from discrimination, since discrimination in the market place is generally exclusionary, while queuing is preferential. In one setting at one time, queuing cannot be distinguished from discrimination. However, when two labor markets are compared, the distinction between queuing and discrimination becomes clearer. Since workers are queued presumably according to group membership first and skills second, any groups'


Segnzented Assimilation and Queuing

19

place in the queue depends largely on the number of competing groups in the marketplace. For example, if Cubans are at the front of the queue, Nicaraguans are next, and Mexicans are last, occupational attainment for Mexicans would be higher in those places where there are no Nicaraguans. This assumes, of course, that the order of groups in the queue is the same across labor market contexts. Queuing theory has been discussed extensively in the economics literature and has also been explored in sociological studies (Reimers, 1984; Reitz, 1990; Rich, 1995; Roos & Hennessy, 1987; Roos & Jones, 1993; Roos & Reskin, 1992; Sakmoto & Chen, 1991; Sakamoto & Powers, 1995; Woon, 1987). Particularly queuing has been used to explain differences in occupational attainment, labor market sector attainment, and wages between men and women (Rich, 1995), immigrants and natives (Woon, 1987), and different immigrant groups (Roos & Hennessy, 1987). Unlike segmented assimilation, where individual level characteristics are still recognized as important factors in immigrant adaptation (Portes & Zhou, 1993; Portes, 1997), queuing assumes that group characteristics are more important predictors of queuing than individual characteristics, since easily recognized characteristics of the group provide signals that this group should be treated differently (Alba & Logan, 1992). The study of queuing is also distinguished from research on segmented assimilation in that the former tends to focus more on differences within pan-ethnic groups (e.g., national origin differences and within ethnic group differences), while the latter tends to focus on differences between these pan-ethnic groups (e.g., Asians versus whites or Latinos versus blacks).

Empirical Applications Since segmented assimilation developed partially out of concern for a possible decline in the economic outcomes of immigrant children, most studies of segmented assimilation have focused on the second generation. For example, the educational performance, attainment, and aspirations of Asian and Latino second-generation children was examined by Kao and Tienda (1995), and the self-identification of school children was explored by Portes & Zhou (1993). These studies found that Haitian immigrant children, for example, were particularly vulnerable to downward assimilation due to identification as African-Americans. Other researchers have also suggested that other outcomes, such as the transition to self-employment by the children of some groups, offer evidence of segmented assimilation (Alba & Nee, 1997). Although segmented assimilation was conceived as a way of explaining outcomes for second and third generation immigrants (Alba & Nee, 1997; Zhou, 1997), the concept has been applied to the first generation as well. Kao and Copyright 2001 by Stephanie Bohon

20


Tienda (1995), for example, find that differences in the educational performance among school-age immigrants changes with increased years in the U S . This indicates that the trends toward incorporation begin with the first generation, and that an examination of first-generation outcomes can be indicative of things to come. Portes (1997) lends support for this contention. He notes that while full assimilation into a native group occurs with successive generations, "patterns of adaptation of the first generation set the stage for what is to come." Massey (1995) also reinforces this argument by noting that, while measures of assimilation such as English fluency and intermarriage take generations, other measures of assimilation such as income and occupational attainment status increase with additional years in the U S . Since increased economic opportunities generally lead to some upward mobility, first generation immigrants may benefit from current labor market conditions, and they may, in turn, pass on these benefits to the next generation (Alba & Nee, 1997). Consequently, the selection of a destination area by the first generation of immigrants and the resultant economic mobility associated with that choice are important areas for study. In cities like Miami, segmented assimilation suggests that Latin American immigrants, as well as their offspring, will do particularly well, since assimilation means incorporation into CubanAmerican society. Furthermore, those groups most like the Cubans should assimilate at the fastest pace. According to Portes, assimilation into the CubanAmerican experience should be particularly easy for Nicaraguans, since they share not only a language and culture, but also a similar refugee history. Furthermore, Nicaraguans were particularly welcomed into Miami's Cuban community, thus affording them a privileged reception context (Portes & Zhou, 1993; Portes & Stepick, 1993).9 Since the amount of incorporation that occurs with the first generation is a good barometer of trends in the second and successive generations, it is important to examine the occupational attainment patterns of first generation immigrants. From this examination and the application of segmented assimilation theory to the design and methodology, important information can be gathered regarding the potential experiences of future generations. Applying segmented assimilation theory to first generation immigrants in the manner used in this study allows greater insight into the early patterns of adjustment and the long-term effects of this adjustment on these immigrants and their children. While segmented assimilation is based on the idea of the incorporation and creation of pan-ethnic groups with similar characteristics, queuing is based on the concept of dominant labor market status. Dominant labor market status is gained when certain groups in the best position to exploit their available



21

resources enter an area. They maintain their status through any powerful and coercive means available that allows them to push other groups to the periphery (Alba & Nee, 1997). Under segmented assimilation, Latin American immigrants should become like other Latinos in the labor market. In labor markets where Latin American immigrants and their descendants dominate that labor market (i.e., in the Latino enclaves), occupational attainment among all Latin American immigrants should be high and there should be no significant difference in occupational attainment levels between the different immigrant groups. If queuing is occurring in the Latino enclaves, occupational attainment will be high for some groups (e.g., the dominant enclave group and other groups high in the queue) and significantly lower for others. In summary, under the segmented assimilation model, country of origin should not determine occupational attainment levels for Latin American immigrants. All Latin American immigrants should demonstrate similar levels of occupational attainment regardless of national origin once individual factors such as education are taken into consideration. Under queuing theory, however, national origin may be a strong predictor of occupational attainment, particularly in those places where one or two Latin American immigrant groups controls the labor market.

THEORIES OF ADAPTATION AND THE ETHNIC ENCLAVE ECONOMY This study looks at segmented assimilation, queuing, and enclave theory within three distinct labor markets: metropolitan areas with Latino enclaves, metropolitan areas with Asian enclaves, and non-enclave areas. The impact of place of work on the adaptation experience of immigrants is of paramount importance because successful adaptation is as dependent on immigrants' economic context as it is on the human capital and ethnic factors that are brought to the marketplace (Portes & Zhou, 1992; Tienda & Wilson, 1992; Wallace, 1986). Alba and Nee (1997) note: If at the community level the opportunities to express ethnicity are meager or socially inappropriate, the intent to maintain ethnicity, assuming it exists, may be thwarted or transformed. The desire to find ethnic modes of behavior and expression, then, is likely to succeed where the supply-side of ethnicity is fairly rich in possibility. Where individuals assimilate in large numbers and are not replaced by a continuing immigration stream, a pattern characterizing many European-ancestry groups, the supply-side of ethnicity is diminished as a whole as well as narrowed in specific respects. (p. 835)


22


So place is important in the adaptation of immigrants, yet the relationship between adaptation and place is not always clear. Immigrants in some places certainly fare better than others; however, an immigrant's economic position may create a barrier to migration to a place that provides more opportunity for occupational mobility or higher wages (Barrera, 1979; Portes & Bach, 1985; Tienda & Wilson, 1991; Wallace, 1996). And while there is amble evidence that the ethnic composition of the labor market has considerable impact on economic success (Lieberson, 1980; Semyonov, Hoyt & Schott, 1984; Reimers, 1984; Tienda & Lii, 1987), with the exception of the ethnic enclave, the mechanisms responsible have not been clearly identified (Tienda & Wilson, 1992). For example, an immigrant may select a destination because that place maximizes the immigrant's proximity to friends and relatives regardless of the economic opportunities in that place (Nee, Sanders, & Sernau, 1994). On the other hand, if having connections in the destination area increases the likelihood of early, stable employment, an immigrant may benefit despite the selection of a poorer labor market (Tienda & Wilson, 1992). The interaction between ethnicity and place is also important because ethnicity can "modify the character of class relationships" within a locale (Portes & Bach, 1985). Nowhere is this more evident than in the ethnic enclave. In the native labor market, members of certain ethnic groups may be viewed disparagingly, relegating immigrants from this group to low paying, menial, often dangerous jobs that native workers are reluctant to take. The push into the secondary labor market limits the future economic success of the immigrant ensuring their continuation at the bottom of the class hierarchy.1° When immigrants control the local labor market, however, as they do in ethnic enclaves, the opportunities for both occupational and class mobility increase. One of the very interesting points about the ethnic enclave is that it tends to contradict straight-line assimilation theory (Nee, Sanders, & Sernau, 1994). Under the straight-line model, adaptation is aided by geographic dispersion. Segmented assimilation does not operate under such assumptions, since context retains its primacy. In ethnic enclaves, immigrants can achieve occupational attainment soon after resettlement and may benefit from education and work experience acquired in their native country. Immigrants outside of the enclave, however, are often forced to compete with other members of the underclass in a pool of poor jobs. To conclude, it should be reiterated that labor market context should affect the ability of immigrants to acquire additional human capital upon arrival in the host country. Furthermore, both destination area and country of origin may have an impact on economic adaptation separate from the education, work experience, language ability, and household characteristics of the individual immigrants. The


Segmented Assinzilation and Queuing

23

intersection of immigrant adaptation and ethnic enclave theories will be more fully explored in the next chapter.


CHAPTER THREE

Ethnic Enclaves and Enclave Theory

In the pioneering work on ethnic enclaves, Wilson and Portes (1980) defined the immigrant enclave as a "self enclosed inner-city minority community." This rudimentary conceptualization of the term enclave remained in use only until the second significant work on the ethnic enclave was published two years later as Wilson and Portes began to diverge on the important defining elements of the term, most notably geographic location and business ownership. Wilson and Martin (1982) expanded the original definition to argue that the economies of these minority communities were "composed of clusters of small businesses which [were] collectively vertically and horizontally integrated" and usually minority owned. Portes, however, dropped the inner-city element and reconceptualized the ethnic enclave more rigorously as a geographically bounded area with a preponderance of employers from the same ethnic group or country of origin and their co-ethnic or co-national workers (Portes & Bach, 1985; Portes & Jensen, 1987, 1989, 1992; Portes & Stepick, 1993; Portes & Rumbaut, 1996). While the differences between Wilson's and Portes' definitions of the enclave are minor, they are instructive because they underscore the difficulties that researchers have had in coming to a consensus regarding the exact nature of the ethnic enclave. This continuing controversy, dubbed the "enclave debate" (Waldinger, 1992), has resulted in a variety of both conceptual and operative uses of the term. According to Portes and his colleagues (e.g., Portes and Bach, 1985; Portes and Jensen, 1987, 1989, 1992; Portes and Stepick, 1993; Portes and Rumbaut, 1996), any analysis of the enclave must emphasize the importance of ethnically defined jobs rather than ethnic residential segregation as conceptualized by Sanders and Nee (1987). Not convinced by either argument, Zhou and Logan (1989) examined Chinese workers in New York defining the enclave


26


alternatively as place of work, place of employment, and industrial sector. Other authors used other formulations (Bailey & Waldinger, 1991; Evans, 1989; Light, 1984). Today, the enclave debate is expanded to include arguments over the degree of the economy's vertical and horizontal integration necessary to create "enclave conditions" (Bailey & Waldinger, 1991), the degree of labor market isolation necessary to facilitate self-employment (Evans, 1989), the amount of geographic "boundedness" experienced by ethnic workers (Light, 1984), and the amount of "ethnic advantage" needed to allow immigrants to escape the secondary labor market (Logan, Al ba, & McNulty, 1994). Despite the fact that there is no widely accepted definition of the ethnic enclave, there remain three factors either stated or implied in all of the conceptualizations. First, the term enclave implies separation from the economic activity surrounding it (Waldinger, 1992). This implication is taken to its extreme by Portes and Manning (1986) who note that the enclave is such a complete institution that immigrants do not need to venture outside of it to provide for their needs. Second, the emphasis on boundedness is central to definitions of the ethnic enclave espoused by other researchers (e.g., Light, l984), although exactly what is bounded remains contentious.ll Returning to the debates between Portes and Jensen and Sanders and Nee (1992), for example, it appears that while the two sets of authors do not agree on whether it is more important to emphasize ethnically defined jobs or ethnic residential segregation, they do agree that the enclave exists within a small area (usually a portion of a county or metropolitan area). Finally, despite the various definitions, the term enclave has been used in the United States to indicate only a handful of metropolitan areas. That is, the same sets of enclave cities are identified again and again by researchers, despite the myriad definitions, as shown in Table 1. This finding suggests that the differing definitions of the enclave are not so different, and that there is some validity to each position. For the purposes of the research undertaken here, Logan, Alba, & McNulty's (1994) definition of the enclave is employed. These authors contend that any city characterized by "co-ethnic owners and employees, spatial concentration, and sectoral specialization" can be considered an enclave (p. 694). This definition is useful because it encompasses the three elements of the enclave concept: economic separation, geographic bounding, and identification of cities which generally match those identified by other.



27

Table 1. Ethnic Enclaves in the United States Metropolitan Area Anaheim Honolulu Houston Jersey City Los Angeles

Ethnic group Japanese Japanese Mexican Cuban Korean

Miami

Chinese Japanese Mexican Cuban Cuban

New York

Chinese

Korean Dominican

San Francisco

Colombian Chinese

San Jose

Japanese Japanese

Author(s) identifying place Logan, Alba, & McNulty (1994) Logan, Alba, & McNulty (1994) Logan, Alba, & McNulty (1994) Logan, Alba, & McNulty ( 1994) Bonacich, Light, & Wong (1977); Bonacich & Sung (1982); Light (1980, 1984); Logan,Alba, & McNulty ( 1994) Logan, Alba, & McNulty (1994) Logan, Alba, & McNulty ( 1994) Logan, Alba, & McNulty (1994) Logan, Alba, & McNulty (1994) Bailey & Waldinger (1991); Evans (1989); Forment (1987); Gilbertson (1 995); Light (1984); Light, Sabagh, Bozorgmehr, & Der-Martirosian (1994); Logan, Alba, & McNulty (1994); Model (1992); Portes & Bach, 1985; Portes & Jensen (1989); Portes & Stepick, 1993; Sanders & Nee (1987); Wilson & Portes (I 980); Wilson & Martin (1982) Bailey & Waldinger (1991); Gilbertson (1995); Logan, Alba, & McNulty (1994); Waldinger & Lapp (1993); Zhou & Logan (1989) Bailey & Waldinger (1991); Logan, Alba, & McNulty ( 1994) Bailey & Waldinger (1991); Gilbertson (1995); Gilbertson & Gurak (1993); Waldinger, 1997a; Waldinger & Lapp (1993) Gilbertson (1995); Gilbertson & Gurak (1993) Bailey & Waldinger (1991); Logan, Alba, & McNulty (1994); Model (1992); Sanders & Nee ( 1 987) Logan, Alba, & McNulty (1994) Logan, Alba, & McNulty ( 1994)

An examination of Table 1 shows nine metropolitan areas in the United States that can be considered an ethnic enclave using Logan, Alba and McNulty's (1994) and others' definition. These cities are Anaheim, Honolulu, Houston, Jersey City, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, San Francisco, and San Jose. Of these metropolitan areas, three have more than one enclave. They are


28


New York (which has Chinese, Korean, Dominican, and Colombian enclaves) San Francisco (which has Chinese and Japanese enclaves) and Los Angeles (which has Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, and Cuban enclaves). Five of the nine areas in Table 1 have Latin American immigrant enclaves; however, Light, Sabagh, Bozoregmehr, and Der-Martirosian (1994) and Portes and Bach (1985) make compelling arguments against the existence of any Mexican enclaves. Furthermore, among all of the cities that Logan, Alba and McNulty (1994) argue are ethnic enclaves, they make the weakest case for the Mexican enclaves in Houston and Los Angeles. Eliminating Mexican enclaves, there are only four cities with Latin American immigrant enclaves. Of these, three are Cuban.

THE IMPACT OF THE ENCLAVE ON IMMIGRANT ECONOMIC ADAPTATION For nearly twenty years, scholars have debated the effects of the ethnic enclave on the income, occupational mobility, and self-employment of workers (Aldrich & Waldinger, 1990; Borjas, 1986; Bonacich, 1988; Evans, 1989; Light, 1984; Logan, Alba, & McNulty, 1994; McManus, 1990; Min, 1988; Portes & Bach, 1985; Portes & Jensen, 1987; 1989; Portes & Stepick, 1993; Robinson, 1988; Sanders & Nee, 1987). Much of this debate has focused on the importance of ethnic enclaves in reducing the human capital depreciation initially experienced by new immigrants and the ability of the enclave to improve the overall economic position of immigrants in the labor market in the long run (Bailey & Waldinger, 1991; Evans, 1989; Light, 1984; Light, Sabagh, Bozorgmehr, & DerMartirosian, 1993; Logan, Alba & McNulty, 1994; Min, 1987; Portes & Jensen, 1989; Portes & Stepick, 1993; Wilson & Martin, 1982). While there is considerable disagreement among scholars about the precise mechanisms which facilitate better outcomes for immigrants in enclaves, the theoretical justification and practical evidence for assuming that enclaves encourage at least some types of adaptation are widely noted (Aldrich & Waldinger, 1990; Bailey & Waldinger, 1991; Evans, 1989; Light, 1984; Light, Sabagh, Bozorgmehr, & DerMartirosian, 1994, 1995; Logan, Alba & McNulty, 1994; Min, 1987; Nee, Sanders, & Sernau, 1994; Portes & Bach, 1985; Portes & Grosfoguel, 1994; Portes & Jensen, 1987; 1989; 1992; Portes & Rumbaut, 1996; Portes & Stepick, 1993; Portes & Zhou, 1992; 1995; Reitz, 1990; Sanders & Nee, 1987; 1992; 1996; Waldinger, 1989; 1993; Wilson & Martin, 1982). It is generally assumed that immigrants initially experience significant downward mobility upon entry into the U.S. due to lack of experience and lower employment skills (Waldinger, 1997a; 1997b). In addition, immigrants may also encounter early difficulties due to language barriers, lack of networks, and Copyright 2001 by Stephanie Bohon


29

cultural adjustment lags. Ethnic enclaves limit the amount of human capital depreciation that occurs at the time of entry because they offer a pool of jobs that do not require high skill levels or English fluency (Portes & Bach, 1985; Rockett, 1983). In the long run, immigrants in an enclave can also expect to fare better than their non-enclave counterparts because of preferential access to capital which can be used for self-employment (Aldrich & Waldinger, 1990; Evans, 1989; Light, 1984; Portes & Bach, 1985; Portes & Stepick, 1993; Sanders & Nee, 1996; Waldinger, 1989). While the mechanisms through which immigrants achieve higher economic attainment in an enclave have not been fully explored, there are four assumptions that underlie the reasons for the relatively greater success of enclave immigrants: 1. Ability to speak English is unimportant in the ethnic enclave, so language does not create a barrier to entry into the labor market, and ability to speak the native enclave language may actually improve enclave chances. 2. Enclaves are marked by "bounded solidarity" and "enforceable trust" which is created through the reaction to discrimination faced outside of the enclave and the close association of the enclave members (Portes, McLeod, & Parker, 1978; Portes & Bach, 1985). The end result of the "we" feeling created by these two factors is that employers feel obligated to employ other immigrants, while immigrants feel compelled to work hard for their new bosses; 3. Cultural differences in job acquisition processes and work ethics between the sending and receiving countries are muted in an ethnic enclave and may be much more like the immigrant's country of origin than those of the destination area; and 4. Insofar as immigrant enclaves trade in ethnically-defined goods, skills acquired in the sending country are in high demand which speeds the transition process. These four factors are the common threads that bind enclave theory. These assumptions imply that the enclave insulates workers from less favorable conditions in the secondary labor market, and it also provides some protection from unemployment or downward mobility immediately after arrival in the receiving country. These assumptions also imply that there are marked differences in what the enclave provides for the worker in the years immediately proceeding immigration (employment) and in the long run (self-employment and upward mobility).


30


EXAMINING THE ENCLAVE: MIAMI, LOS ANGELES AND NEW YORK Given both the geographic and ethnic diversity of the nine cities in Table 1, it is prudent to consider whether or not the factors creating and perpetuating the enclaves are common to all of these metropolitan areas. Furthermore, it seems necessary to consider whether the outcomes for immigrants are also similar. In order to address these questions, the case study literature on the Miami, Los Angeles and New York enclaves is examined.

Miami The rise of Fidel Castro and the ensuing revolution in 1959 prompted a flood of emigration from Cuba to the United States. Given the proximity of Miami to this Caribbean island and the frequent choice of Miami as a vacation spot for affluent Cubanos, it is not surprising that Miami was the eventual destination of these migrants, since most of them assumed that they would soon be returning to their homeland (Portes & Bach, 1985). Like most refugees, the Cubans did not enter the U S . well prepared to adapt to U.S. society. Many lost much of their wealth during the revolution or did not have time to bring their assets with them, and despite the high levels of education and affluence of the first wave of immigrants, many did not speak English (Portes & Stepick, 1993). Consequently, the initial wave of Cuban refugees faced severe initial downward mobility and were forced to settle in Miami and Hialeah's inner city slums (Stepick & Portes, 1986). Although these early Cuban immigrants were skilled, their inability to speak English and the discrimination that they faced in the Miami labor market put them at a disadvantage vis-a-vis non-Latino white residents (Portes & Stepick, 1993). Despite these disadvantages, two factors worked in their favor. The first factor was the relatively advantaged reception context that these immigrants faced (Portes & Borotz, 1989). Given the hostile relations between the Castro regime and the U.S. government, the Cuban refugees were welcomed and provided full refugee benefits including medical care, access to welfare, and free English classes. Cuban refugees did not have to worry that they would be deported or that their legal immigrant status would come under scrutiny (Portes & Stepick, 1993). Given that fear of deportment has been shown to create a major obstacle to occupational mobility for many Latin American immigrants (Kossoudji & Cobb-Clark, 1996), the Cubans' favorable reception was an essential key to their later advancement. The other advantage that the Cubans had was that Miami was home to many Latin American-based financial institutions. Cubans who could not find work in



31

the mainstream economy often found employment among the various Central and South American banks located in the area. These jobs still resulted in downward mobility, as former Cuban bankers became loan officers for Latin American banks, for example; however, their positions were put to good use. Cuban loan officers convinced their employers to make rather unorthodox loans to other Cuban refugees. While the U S . banks often refused loans to immigrants because of their poor economic status and lack of credit history, the Latin American banks made small start-up loans to these refugees using family reputation as a main criteria for lending risk (Portes & Bach, 1985). As these small character loans were repaid, Cuban business owners were able to acquire larger loans for bigger business ventures. By the time the banks discontinued granting character loans in the 1970s, many Cuban-owned businesses had already been established (Portes & Stepick, 1993). Portes and Stepick (1993) contend that there are three factors that are essential for the establishment and perpetuation of an ethnic enclave. First, an area must have stable economic conditions coupled with the demand for ethnically defined goods. Second, employers must have access to a cheap pool of labor which is unmotivated or unable to work in another economic sector. Third, entrepreneurs and potential entrepreneurs must have access to capital. Miami provided (and continues to provide) all three of these prerequisites for the Cuban community. The presence of Latin American banks willing to make character loans in the early days, and the proliferation of Cuban-American owned and operated banks in Miami today ensures that capital will continue to be available for Cuban entrepreneurs and their children. In addition, the continuation and expansion of many Cuban-owned firms is aided by the fact that over 35 percent of the population of Dade County is Spanish-origin. Consequently, local industries producing goods such as tortillas, cigars and rum should continue to experience high demand for their products. Privileged access to labor also remains important in the Miami enclave. The second wave of refugees that arrived in Miami in the 1970s was disproportionately drawn from middle class, white collar workers. This new infusion of migrants took jobs in Cuban-owned shops and factories, bought Cuban goods from their countrymen, and acquired homes in Miami and Hialeah vacated by the entrepreneurial class as they moved to suburban Kendall. As these immigrants went on to start their own small businesses, the labor pool was replenished by a third wave of low-skilled, Cuban peasants. Although migration from Cuba has slowed considerably in the last ten years, available cheap labor is now provided by immigrants from other Central American countries, notably Haiti and Nicaragua.


32


The Miami enclave has been able to sustain itself and grow due to its early advantages and the upward mobility that it offers coethnic workers who go on to establish businesses of their own. Portes estimates that one of every four Cubans in Miami is self-employed or employed by a co-ethnic, compared to one of every 8 4 employed blacks, and that the biggest predictor of self-employment for Cubans is previous employment by another Cuban (Portes & Bach, 198.5). This transition to self-employment is important, since it is the best means for immigrants to attain high occupational attainment (Borjas, 1986).

Los Angeles Despite the unique history of the Miami enclave, Portes and his colleagues have made a number of theoretical assertions about the creation of ethnic enclaves in general and the role they play in the lives of immigrants based entirely on this one case (Portes & Bach, 1985; Portes & Grosfoguel, 1994; Portes & Jensen, 1987, 1989; Portes & Manning, 1986; Portes & Rumbaut, 1996; Portes & Stepick, 1993; Portes & Zhou, 1995). The myriad works on the Miami enclave by other researchers (Bailey & Waldinger, 1991; Evans 1989; Forment, 1987, 1989; Gilbertson, 1995; Light, 1984; Light, Sabagh, Bozorgmehr, & DerMartirosian, 1994; Logan, Alba, & McNulty, 1994; Model 1992; Sanders & Nee, 1987; Wilson & Martin, 1982) also seem to indicate that the immigrant economy in this Florida city is typical of all ethnic enclaves. Some researchers, however, question the generalizability of the Cuban experience in Miami. Logan, Alba, and McNulty (1994) note: [Tlhe diversification found in Miami's Cuban community is not the norm for enclave economies. Rather, if we were to describe the "ideal type" of enclave we would point to the more common instances. The usual form of an enclave, we would propose, is based on low-wage production in a single productive sector with low levels of capitalization (and possibly high levels of female employment), in conjunction with ethnically stereotyped restaurants or food stores and some services oriented to group members. (p. 719)

In order to get a truer picture of the ethnic enclave, therefore, it is instructive to examine cities more closer to the "ideal type" that Logan, Alba, and McNulty (1994) describe. Los Angeles is one such city (Fernandez-Kelly & Garcia, 1980). Like Miami, Los Angeles is home one of the country's largest immigrant populations. In fact, Los Angeles is second only to Miami in proportion of the population that is foreign born (27 and 34 percent, respectively). Also like Miami, a majority of L.A.'s immigrant population (nearly 44 percent) comes Copyright 2001 by Stephanie Bohon


33

from a single sending country. Unlike Miami, however, where the single largest immigrant ethnic group is comprised of the highly educated and highly skilled Cubans, Los Angeles is home to the largest (largely unskilled and uneducated) Mexican immigrant population in the U.S. (Waldinger, 1997a, 1997b; Waldinger & Bozoregmehr, 1996).12 In fact, with its nearly 4 million immigrants, Los Angeles boasts the United States' largest total immigrant population, which may also explain the extreme ethnic fragmentation of the Los Angeles economy (Waldinger, 1997b; Waldinger & Bozorgmehr, 1996). In L.A., most ethnic groups are highly concentrated as either owners or workers in a small number of industries (Waldinger, 1997b). This large immigrant population has ensured a continuing demand for ethnically defined goods, a necessary prerequisite for enclave creation according to Portes & Stepick (1993). On the other hand, unlike Miami where most of the Cuban enclave is located along Calle Ocho in Miami and in the neighboring city of Hialeah, industrial concentration does not equate with geographic clustering in Los Angeles. The three Asian enclaves in L.A. (Chinese, Japanese, and Korean) are widely dispersed throughout Los Angeles County (Light & Bonacich, 1991; Logan, Alba & McNulty, 1994). Furthermore, while the largest immigrant group in Miami is also the dominant enclave group, this is not the case with Los Angeles (Logan, Alba, & McNulty, 1994). The three largest immigrant groups in Los Angeles (Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans), neither own many of their own businesses nor are employed in any numbers by co-ethnic employers (Waldinger, 1997b; Waldinger & Bozorgmehr, 1996). Nonetheless, these groups have had great success in finding jobs, and employment rates (often in low-paying, low skilled work) are high (Waldinger, 1997a). In fact, this large and relatively new immigrant population has sustained the second pre-condition for enclave development: a cheap pool of available labor (Portes & Stepick, 1993). While Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans comprise more than half of Los Angeles' immigrant population, the Asian population in the metropolitan area is also sizeable. In fact, as of 1990, there were more Asians living in L.A. than African Americans. And unlike the larger Latin American immigrant groups in the city, the largest groups of Asian immigrants (Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese, and Indian - in order of size), with the exception of the Vietnamese, were disproportionately selected from among the most skilled, educated, entrepreneurial, and wealthy (Waldinger, 1997b). The Chinese, Korean and Japanese immigrants--most of whom arrived after 1970--quickly established enclaves and were soon able to control large sectors of the produce


34


farming, apparel manufacturing, printing, grocery, and restaurant markets (Jiobu, 1988; Logan, Alba & McNulty, 1994).13 Light (1972) has argued that the building of the Asian enclaves was the result of a "cultural proclivity toward business partnerships." However, more recent enclave theory suggests a broader explanation. The ease with which the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans were able to build enclaves in Los Angeles, and the inability or unwillingness of the Mexican immigrants to do the same may be explained by the differences in job experience, education levels, enterpreneurial networks and capital access between the two groups (Portes & Rumbaut, 1996). In addition to the Asian immigrants' high levels of human capital, these entrepreneurs benefited from a system of rotating credit unions which allowed for the easy acquisition of small loans (Light, 1972; Logan, Alba, & McNulty, 1994). The Mexicans, however, had few financial resources to draw upon and little experience with urban enterprise. Again, this finding lends support to Portes and Stepick's (1993) contention that access to capital is necessary for enclave creation. It can also be argued that the relative ease with which Mexicans have been able to find employment in the Los Angeles area (Waldinger & Bozoregmehr, 1996) has removed some of the impetus for self-employment. Given the low education and skill levels of these immigrants, a job in the U.S. economy may be seen as upward mobility for Mexican workers, while the same job would be viewed poorly by the typical Cuban, Chinese or Korean immigrant. New York The Chinese and Korean enclaves in New York, the second largest immigrant receiving city in the U.S., are not markedly different from those in Los Angeles in either historical development or sectoral specialization. In both cities, the Chinese are highly concentrated in the garment industry, and, like Los Angeles, Manhattan and Queens are home to Chinatowns. And while the Korean population in New York is three times larger than that in Los Angeles, the Korean enclaves in both cities are geographically dispersed (Logan, Alba, & McNulty, 1994). Unlike Los Angeles, but similar to Miami, New York's largest immigrant group, Dominicans, also control an enclave economy (Portes & Grosfoguel, 1994; Waldinger, 1997b). Dominican immigrants (almost 90 percent of whom live in the New York area) own nearly 70 percent of the bodegas in New York, and control significant portions of the transportation and garment trade in that city. Much of this entrepreneurial success can be attributed to an influx of professional and white collar workers from the island in the late 1980s (Portes & Grosfoguel, 1994; Portes & Zhou, 1992). But unlike the Korean and Chinese



35

small business owners, who acquired start-up capital through rotating credit unions (Light, 1972; Logan, Alba, & McNulty, 1994), it is suspected that many of the Dominicans brought money with them or acquired it through money laundering and drug trafficking (Portes & Grosfoguel, 1994). More recently, Dominican businesses in the U S , have been funded through joint ventures between Dominican immigrants and firms in Santo Domingo and Santiago. In fact, more than 40 percent of the Dominican enclaves businesses in 1990 received some capital from their homeland, although the amounts were typically small (Portes & Zhou, 1992).

Similarities and Differences in the Latino Enclaves Returning to the question of whether or not there are commonalities in the Latino enclaves, the examination of Miami, Los Angeles, and New York reveals a number of trends. First, the initial means of acquiring venture capital differed markedly between dominant enclave groups in New York, Miami, and Los Angeles prior to the creation of the enclaves. However, each group had access to capital from sources other than traditional U.S. lending institutions. Furthermore, each group was able to acquire funds from sources that other immmigrants groups in the same city did not have access to. Finally, each group has created a system whereby capital will be readily accessible (at least to members of the dominant enclave group) in the future. A second factor common to the three cities is the relatively stable economic conditions within the enclave sector. Unlike Los Angeles, where low-skilled manufacturing jobs remained abundant throughout the 1980s despite the postindustrialization that plagued other cities (Waldinger, 1997b), New York has seen marked declines in the number of available manufacturing jobs. Interestingly, while the garment industry was particularly hard hit, experiencing declines from the 1950s throughout the 1980s, employment opportunities in immigrant apparel firms actually grew during this same period (Waldinger, 1997b). Many of the hundreds of garment shops found in New York today are owned by Chinese, Korean, and Dominican immigrants who employ co-ethnic workers (Bailey & Waldinger, 1991; Portes & Grosfoguel, 1994; Portes & Zhou, 1992), and the number of available jobs in these sectors continues to rise (Waldinger, 1997b). One reason for the success of the immigrant apparel industry has been the ability to recruit semi-skilled workers from among other immigrants, a process which Bailey and Waldinger (1991) refer to as the training systems approach. Since the needle trades are often marked by demand for experienced workers, but the pay is typically low, entrepreneurs can rely on their workers to refer their immigrant relatives and friends for open positions within the firm. Another Copyright 2001 by Stephanie Bohon

36


reason for the success of the immigrant garment industry, particularly in New York's Chinatown, has been an influx of Asian immigrants in recent years who still tend to settle in the traditionally Chinese and Korean areas (Portes & Zhou, 1992). Clearly the enclaves in New York, like Miami and Los Angeles, benefit from a plentiful supply of cheap immigrant labor. In summary, there are three factors common to the three enclave cases examined here. First, the dominant enclave groups have preferential access to capital for self-employment. Second, the enclaves appear to be insulated from conditions that may depress the larger economy. Finally, there are high levels of employment in each of the enclave areas, suggesting that the enclaves provides ample jobs for immigrant workers. These three cities' enclaves are not entirely similar, however. Unlike Miami, where second generation Cubans tend to stay and work in businesses owned by their immigrant parents, enclave workers in New York tend to be disproportionately first-generation immigrants. More precisely, given that much of enclave employment in New York is in sweatshops, children of immigrants generally prefer less grueling work in the service sector (Bailey & Waldinger, 1991). In New York, therefore, employment by the first generation in the immigrant garment industry is a pathway to the primary labor market for the second generation. A second notable difference between the three enclaves is in the numerical prevalence of the dominant enclave group. In New York and Miami, the largest immigrant groups were able to establish enclave economies, while the largest Asian groups also established enclaves in Los Angeles, but the largest Latin American groups did not. A final difference between the three areas is the diversity among the types of industries that comprise the ethnic enclave economy. In Los Angeles and New York, the dominant enclave groups have particularly concentrated their efforts in the textile and apparel industries (Logan, Alba, & McNulty, 1994). New York's enclave is slightly more diversified, since the concentration of Dominican immigrants in the poor, predominantly Puerto Rican section of Washington Heights has provided opportunities for self-employment not available elsewhere. As mainstream supermarket, drug store, and nightclub chains retreated from this impoverished sector, and cab companies increasingly excluded this area from their service, cash-rich Dominicans were not only able to purchase the left-over infrastructure, they were able to reorient these businesses to suit the tastes of the largely Latino clientele (Portes & Grosfoguel, 1994; Portes & Zhou, 1992). Despite these additional self-employment opportunities, however, New York's Dominican enclave remains much more



37

concentrated in a few industries than Miami, where the businesses in the enclave economy encompass nearly every business sector (Portes & Bach, 1985). Overall, what is particularly striking about the enclaves in these three cities is the similarity in the conditions which led to their creation and success. In each case, heavy concentrations of immigrants created a stable demand for ethnic goods. This immigrant concentration also ensured a ready supply of cheap labor. Finally, each dominant enclave group benefitted from privileged access to capital for self-employment. Clearly, the most successful immigrant groups in these three cities were able to capitalize on these three factors to create enclaves that have enjoyed economic stability despite changing conditions in the larger economy.

THE IMPACT OF THE ENCLAVE ON NON-COETHNIC WORKERS The preceding sections indicate that members of the dominant enclave group tend to fare well in enclaves, either through self-employment or through preferential access to jobs. While the evidence that immigrants fare well in enclave environments is abundant (Aldrich & Waldinger, 1990; Bar-jas, 1986; Evans, 1989; Min, 1987; Portes & Bach, 1985; Portes & Jensen, 1989; Portes & Zhou, 1992), it is also limited in ethnic group coverage. As indicated in the preceding sections, much of the work on this topic has been conducted by Portes and his colleagues examining the Cuban enclave in Miami (e.g., Portes & Bach, 1985; Portes & Jensen, 1989; Portes & Stepick, 1993; Portes & Rumbaut, 1996; Portes & Zhou, 1996; Wilson & Portes, 1980). The other works on enclave effects include studies of the economic outcomes of Chinese, Korean, and Filipino immigrants in Los Angeles (Sanders & Nee, 1987; 1992), and Latino and Asian groups in New York (Kim, Huhr, & Fernandez, 1989; Waldinger, 1989). These studies focus on the earnings, self-employment potential, and occupational mobility of ethnic employers and their co-ethnic workers, while virtually ignoring other immigrants who live and work in these economies. The previous section outlines the four assumptions common to enclave theories based on studies focusing on co-ethnic economic interaction in metropolitan areas. However, if these assumptions hold true, there is also reason to suspect that all immigrants who share common languages and similar cultures should fare well in ethnic enclaves, even if they do not share a country of origin. Immigrants from various sending countries should enjoy the enclave advantages insofar as they provide a continued source of labor with the needed language and trade skills of their homelands. This should be particularly true of Latin American immigrants since they are relatively homogeneous with respect to language and religion. In short, while Cubans appear to do better in Miami than


38


in other areas of the U.S., it could also be the case that Salvadorans, for example, also fare better in the Cuban enclave than elsewhere. Owners of enclave businesses may also appreciate the plight of the recently arrived immigrants, even if they are from a different country of origin. Some may be refugees who can identify with the turmoil caused by sudden uprooting or forced immigration. Others may merely remember their own difficulties in reestablishing themselves in a new country. This empathy may motivate these employers to hire new arrivals and provide them with the economic assistance essential to rapid economic mobility. Portes and Stepick (1993), for example, predict that in the long run Nicaraguan immigrants in Miami will enjoy many of the same advantages that Cubans and Cuban-Americans receive in that area because of the two groups' similar class and occupational backgrounds and historical refugee experiences. On the other hand, it may be the case that immigrants with needed language and trade skills are an easily exploited source of cheap labor for ethnic employers who feel no social obligations to these immigrants (Bonacich, 1988). Consequently, while immigrants will find jobs in the enclave in the short run, their ability to obtain better jobs or capital to start their own businesses in the long run may be hindered. Furthermore, the jobs that they may find in the enclave in the short run may be no better than those available in the secondary labor market. This research explores these possible divergent outcomes by contrasting segmented assimilation theory (that suggests that non-coethnic immigrants will fare well in the enclave) and queuing theory (that suggests that non-coethnic immigrants may face as much or more discrimination in the enclave economy). By also examining the outcome of immigrants who share a language, culturallydefined job skills, and discrimination in the non-Latino white or Asian economic sector, the underlying assumptions of enclave theory can also be tested. If it is the case that Latin American immigrants do not fare well in those metropolitan areas with Latino enclaves in which they are not the dominant group, researchers must re-examine those elements of enclave theory that currently explain why the enclave benefits only dominant enclave group members.


CHAEER FOUR

Data and Methods

DATA AND SAMPLE SELECTION The data used for this study are taken from the U.S. Census 1990 Public Use Microdata (A) Sample (PUMS-A). The PUMS-A is a sample of census records for 5 percent of the housing units in the United States and the people in them. The PUMS contains records of both people and housing units, although only person records will be used in this analysis. This data set was selected because it contains relatively detailed immigration and labor force data and is sufficiently large to study small sub-populations in each of the enclave and non-enclave areas of interest.

Sample Selection Criteria Non-black Latino men between the ages of 23 through 6 4 in 1990 who immigrated prior to 1985 from Latin America and who are currently in the labor force and not currently enrolled in school or the military were included in the models of long-term immigrant occupational attainment. The age 23 was selected as the starting point because it is assumes that those men who immigrated before 1985 will have spent at least five years in the U S . labor force, or will have had the opportunity to have done so. As a consequence, the long-run economic effects of the enclave can be assessed for these immigrants. The recent immigrant sample includes non-black, Latino males aged 18-64 in 1990 who immigrated from a Latin American country between 1985 and 1990 and are currently in the labor force.14 Women are excluded from this study for theoretical reasons. Foremost among these reasons is that the advantages that the enclave offers to women may not be reflected in occupational attainment (Bonacich, 1988; Perez, 1986).


40


While most enclave studies focus on men (and, as a consequence, enclave theory is a reflection of men's experiences), the few studies that have looked at women indicate that the economic advantages that women receive from the enclave are generally through self-employment in a joint-owned venture with a spouse (Bonacich, 1988; Perez, 1986). Another advantage of the enclave, at least for Latina women, is the ability to bring children with them to work. This allows them to work outside of the home while still maintaining the cultural imperative that women should provide primary care for their children (Perez, 1986). Such a situation, however, does not necessarily allow for high occupational attainment. While a more in-depth examination of women's mobility in the enclave is an important direction for future research, at present, their role lies outside of the theoretical dimensions of this study. Non-black Latino men were selected for this study to avoid confusing ethnicity issues with problems of racial discrimination. While there are some problems with the self-reporting of race among Latinos, it is assumed that few white Latinos would classify themselves as black. In addition to those immigrants reporting themselves as black, Jamaicans, Dominicans, Haitians and "Other Hispanic" immigrants indicating Caribbean regional descent (except Cubans) were also eliminated from the sample.15 Puerto Ricans were also excluded from the analysis, since they are not subject to the same immigration barriers as the other groups in this study.

Sample Selection Issues Two major difficulties arise in using Census data to study Latino immigrants. One difficulty arises from the large number of undocumented Latinos working in the United States. The other difficulty arises from the racial and ethnic selfassessment. Both of these difficulties relate to the enumeration of Latinos in the decennial counts. In the 1990 Census, about 1.4 percent of the total population went uncounted; however, blacks and Latinos are much more likely to be undercounted than other racial and ethnic groups (Schirm, 1991). One of the reasons that Latino undercount is problematic stems from the size of the undocumented population; workers in the country illegally are not likely to fill out and return Census questionnaires to the government. Estimating the size of the undocumented population, separating out the Latino portion of that population, and estimating the size of the documented but isolated component of that population (Latinos in the country legally but unable to speak English) presents one of the largest challenges that demographers face when attempting to estimate the number of Latinos in the U.S. (Passell, 1993). Another potential difficulty with this study stems from the design of the Census itself and answers to questions regarding Hispanic origin and Hispanic Copyright 2001 by Stephanie Bohon

Data and Methods

41

ancestry. Beginning in 1970, respondents to the Census were asked to identify themselves and members of their household by race (black, white, AsianIPacific Islander, American IndianIAleutian, or other race) and ancestry. Additionally, they were asked whether or not they or the members of their household were of Hispanic origin. In 1980 Census, the question of Hispanic origin yielded the highest non-response rate of all the questions on the long and short forms. Additionally, there has been a sizeable mismatch between race, ancestry, and Hispanic origin responses. Numerous blacks living in the southern United States identified themselves as South Americans, and other respondents reported Hispanic origin but no Hispanic ancestry (Martin, Demaio, & Campanelli, 1990). In short, the Census fails to provide data on many Latinos because they are remain uncounted or they failed to respond to the Hispanic origin question. Additionally, some non-Latinos may be included in the Hispanic counts. These difficulties suggest that the Latino immigrants in this sample are selected from primarily documented workers who have adapted the most readily to the U S . political and social system.

SAMPLING AREAS Enclave Selection The methodology employed in this study relies on a three stage sampling area encompassing twelve metropolitan places. This sampling scheme assumes that the urban destination of Latin Americans immigrants in the U S . can be divided into three types of receiving sites: metropolitan areas with Latino enclaves, metropolitan areas with Asian enclaves, or non-enclave areas.16 The Latino enclave sites used in this study are the Miami-Hialeah Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA), the New York City PMSA, the Los Angeles-Long Beach PMSA, and the Jersey City PMSA. The Asian enclave sites are the San Jose PMSA, the Honolulu Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), the San Francisco PMSA, and the Anaheim-Santa Ana PMSA. These eight metropolitan areas encompass all of the enclaves listed in Table 1, with the exception of Houston, whose enclave status remains contentious. PMSAs are subsets of metropolitan areas with one million or more people that consist of a large urban county or counties that demonstrate strong social and economic ties. MSAs are metropolitan areas (MA) that are not closely connected to other metropolitan areas and are generally surrounded by nonmetropolitan counties (Myers, 1992). The choice of PMSAs and MSAs is useful for this study because it offers a larger sampling area than central cities. At the same time, since PMSAs and MSAs are generally a smaller geographic area than MAS, they are more appropriate for enclave designation, since the enclave


42


concept implies tight boundedness. Finally, many MAS, such as Los Angeles, contain more than one enclave area (e.g., Los Angeles and Anaheim), so a smaller geographic unit is preferred.

Non-enclave Selection Because one of the purposes of this study is to compare enclave and non-enclave areas, a four-point criteria was devised in order to select the non-enclave MSAs and PMSAs. For this study, a PMSA is considered a non-enclave area if there are no compelling arguments in the enclave literature for designating the PMSA as an ethnic enclave (such as is the case for Houston), and there are no other enclaves in the same MA. Furthermore, the PMSA cannot fit any of the current, competing definitions of an ethnic enclave, as discussed in Chapter Three. Finally, the area must have a sizeable non-black Latino population comprised of immigrants from at least three different places of origin. There are eight cities that fit the first three criteria: Philadelphia, Detroit, Washington, D.C., San Diego, San Antonio, Chicago, Newark, and El Paso. Of these, four were selected through a process of elimination. Philadelphia and Detroit were eliminated because their Latin American immigrant populations were too small. El Paso was also eliminated because, although it has 1134 respondents in the PUMS sample that fit the sample selection criteria for this study (as discussed above), 98 percent of the immigrants in the El Paso MSA are from Mexico. Finally, Washington D.C. was eliminated because the Latin American immigrants in the PUMS sample primarily identify themselves as black, leaving too few non-black respondents to analyze. The remaining non-enclave areas selected for this study are the Chicago PMSA, the Newark PMSA, the San Antonio MSA, and the San Diego MSA. Each of these areas has a non-black Latino immigrant population of at least 12,000 men over the age of 23, providing a sample of at least 900 total respondents per PMSA.

Place of Work and Place of Residence Considerations The selection of the twelve metropolitan areas examined in this study is fairly straightforward; however, the proper means of allocating respondents to these areas remains under debate. According to Portes and his colleagues (e.g., Portes and Bach, 1985; Portes and Jensen, 1987,1989, 1992; Portes and Stepick, 1993; Portes and Rumbaut, 1996), an ethnic enclave is a geographically bounded area with a preponderance of ethnic employers and their co-ethnic workers. This definition emphasizes the importance of ethnically defined jobs rather than ethnic residential segregation as conceptualized by Sanders and Nee (1987).


Data and Methods

43

The question then becomes, should respondents be included in the sample if they live in an enclave area or if they work there? For those respondents in the labor force but not working, place of residence and place of work are the same (i.e., unemployed respondents are selected if they fit the sample criteria and they live in the PMSA or MSA under study). For those respondents who live in one PMSA and work in another, the appropriate selection criteria is less straightforward; however, Portes and Jensen (1992) make a compelling argument for place of work as the appropriate context when they contend that the factors that determine economic well-being occur in the marketplace, not at home. Furthermore, as workers (particularly entrepreneurs) become more affluent, they are likely to move away from the enclave to upscale, suburban areas while maintaining the enclave as their place of work. Selection of respondents as enclave place of residence, therefore, biases outcomes toward the least well off workers. While the theoretical argument over sample selection is interesting, it may not pose much of a practical problem. For example, Sanders and Nee (1987) note that, for the Miami-Hialeah PMSA, results comparing income attainment do not vary significantly when place of residence is used as a sample selection criteria rather than place of work. However, their contention is not without criticism (Portes & Jensen, 1992). T o test this, total sample size, sample distribution, and average Male Socioeconomic Index (MSEI) scores were compared by place of work and place of residence. These results are reported in Appendix A. The results show that using place of work, rather than place of residence does not significantly effect average MSEI even when there is a substantial difference in sample size, as is the case for San Francisco. Consequently, place of work is used in this research as the sample selection criteria, because it is theoretically more compelling, but it is assumed that either method would yield similar results.

Problems in the Allocation of the Place of Work Variable in the 1990 PUMS While there are compelling arguments for using the place of work variable in the 1990 PUMS to select respondents, there are also some difficulties with this procedure inherent in the data set. As previously mentioned, the PUMS utilizes unique subareas designated as Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAS). However, according to personal communication with Celia Bortlein at the Census Bureau (February 13, 1998), errors were made in the allocation of location data from the Census Bureau's master sample detail file to the microdata areas in the PUMS for some metropolitan places. The consequence of this error is that respondents' place of residence, place of residence five years earlier, and place of work (the variable used in this study), cannot be examined at the PUMA level for the Copyright 2001 by Stephanie Bohon

44


Miami-Fort Lauderdale, Chicago-Gary-Lake County, and Los AngelesAnaheim-Riverside consolidated metropolitan statistical areas. This problem with the 1990 PUMS has also been documented in the literature (Portes & Jensen, 1992). However, since PMSAs (the geographic subareas used in this analysis) are collections of PUMAS, the problem is less significant, because the improper allocations usually did not occur across county lines. That is, although some respondents were not allocated to the proper PUMA (e.g., the PUMS data show no Cubans working in Miami City), they are generally allocated to a neighboring PUMA within the same county. Consequently, the decision to use the PMSA as the geographic unit of analysis rather than some smaller area resulted in capturing most of the respondents. Verification of this fact comes from the Census Bureau (personal communication, February 16, 1998). Although the Census Bureau could not confirm the numbers for the sample of men used in this study, they were able to confirm that the number of workers reported in the PUMS data for the Los Angeles-Long Beach, Anaheim-Santa Ana, Miami-Hialeah, and Chicago PMSAs were within one-percent of the numbers reported in the Bureau's master sample detail file.

Sample Distributions Sample distributions by place of origin for the 12 PMSAs and MSAs under study are shown in Tables 2-7. Table 2 shows the sample distributions for the long term immigrants working in the Latino enclave PMSAs. These samples range in size from the Los Angeles-Long Beach PMSA which has 16958 respondents in the sample to the Jersey City PMSA, which has slightly less than 600 respondents. There is also considerable variation in the internal composition of these enclaves. The Miami-Hialeah PMSA, for example, is predominantly Cuban, with 78 percent of that sample selecting Cuba as their country of origin. The Jersey City PMSA is also predominantly Cuban, although less than half of the total sample in that area is Cuban. On the other hand, the Los Angeles-Long Beach PMSA is predominantly Mexican (75.2 percent), while the New York PMSA is mainly South American (37.3 percent). Table 3 shows the sample distribution by place of origin for the longer term immigrants working in the Asian enclave PMSAs. Again there is considerable variation in the sample sizes across the PMSAs. In each of the Asian enclave areas, however, Mexicans are the dominant Latin American immigrant group, accounting for at least 46 percent of the total sample. Table 4 shows the sample distribution by national origin for the long-term immigrants working in the non-enclave PMSAs. Again, Mexicans dominate the sample, except in the Newark PMSA where Cubans are the largest group, Copyright 2001 by Stephanie Bohon

45

Data and Methods

accounting for more than a third of the total sample, followed by South Americans (30.9 percent) Tables 5 through 7 show the sample distributions by place of work in the PMSAs for the recent immigrants. In every case, the total sample size is smaller than in the longer term samples, and there are differences in the internal distributions, as well. In Jersey City, where Cubans account for about half of all longer term Latin American immigrants in this study, they count for only about seven percent of the recent immigrants. The percent of Cubans is also smaller in the recent immigrant sample in the Miami-Hialeah PMSA and in the New York PMSA. In Los Angeles, the percent of recent Mexican immigrants is still high, but it is slightly smaller than in the longer term sample, primarily due to an increase in Central American migrants. In the Asian enclave and non-enclave PMSAs, the percent Mexican is even larger in the recent immigrant sample than in the longer term sample, except in Honolulu and San Antonio, as seen in Tables 6 and 7. Furthermore, the number of Cubans drops considerably in both of these contexts. The San Francisco, Honolulu, San Antonio, and San Jose metropolitan areas report no Cuban immigrants arriving in 1985 or later that fit the selection criteria, and there are only 17 Cubans in all of the other Asian and non-enclave areas put together. These two economic contexts also report few recent Nicaraguan immigrants, and, in most cases, few Colombians, as well. Table 2. Sample by Place of Origin by Place of Work in a Latino Enclave (LongTerm Immigrants)"

Place of Origin

Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas Los Angeles- Miami-Hialeah, Jersey City, NJ Long Beach, CA FL New York, NY % n % n % n % n 280 47.9 446 2.6 5282 78.0 604 16.8 5 0.9 160 0.9 258 3.8 47 1.3 71 12.1 2744 16.2 250 3.7 550 15.3

Cuba Nicaragua Central America (except Nicaragua) Mexico 10 1.7 1275275.2 96 1.4 327 9.1 Colombia 71 12.1 158 0.9 429 6.3 729 20.2 South America 148 25.3 698 4.1 455 6.7 1344 37.3 (except Colombia) Total 585 100.0 16958 100.0 67,70 100.0 3601 100.0 *The terms Latino and Asian enclave refer to PMSAs containing these enclaves and do not imply that all workers in the sample are participating in the enclave economy.



46

Table 3. Sample by Place of Origin by Place of Work in an Asian Enclave (LongTerm Immigrants)

Place of Origin

Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Metropolitan Statistical Areas Anaheim-Santa Honolulu, HI San Francisco, San Jose, CA Ana, CA CA % n Yo n % n % n 67 2.0 0 0.0 39 1.9 12 1.2 13 0.4 0 0.0 128 6.3 24 2.4

Cuba Nicaragua Central America (except Nicaragua) 209 6.3 Mexico 2893 86.5 Colombia 39 1.2 South America (except Colombia) 122 3.6 Total 3343 100.0

1 6 1

5 13

7.7 46.2 7.7

399 19.8 1248 61.8 33 1.6

75 7.5 822 82.4 11 1.1

38.5 100.0

173 2020

53 997

8.6 100.0

5.3 100.0

Table 4. Sample by Place of Origin by Place of Work in a Non-Enclave Location (Long-Term Immigrants)

Place of Origin

Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Metropolitan Statistical Areas Newark, NJ San Antonio, TXChicago, IL n % n % n YO n 130 4.0 235 35.2 8 0.9 25 3 0.1 6 0.9 8 0.9 3 149 4.6 71 10.6 15 1.7 30

Cuba Nicaragua Central America (except Nicaragua) Mexico 2769 Colombia 64 South America 149 (except Colombia) 3264 Total

9% 1.4 0.2 1.7

84.8 2.0 4.6

21 128 206

3.1 19.2 30.9

823 5 10

94.7 0.6 1.2

1641 10 42

100.0

667

100.0

869

100.0

1751 100.0


93.7 0.6 2.4

47

Data and Methods

Table 5. Sample by Place of Origin by Place of Work in a Latino Enclave (Recent Immigrants)

Place o f Origin Cuba Nicaragua Central America (except Nicaragua) Mexico Colombia South America (except Colombia) Total

Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas Los Angeles- Miami-Hialeah, FL New York, NY Jersey City, NJ Long Beach, C A n % n % n % n % 12 7.2 17 0.3 416 29.5 21 1.5 9 5.4 110 1.6 469 33.2 19 1.4 45 26.9 1396 20.9 166 11.8 301 21.6 15 27 59

9.0 16.2 35.3

4961 38 154

74.3 0.6 2.3

65 113 183

4.6 8.0 13.0

357 250 445

25.6 17.9 31.9

167

100.0

6676

100.0

1412

100.0

1393

100.0

Table 6. Sample by Place of Origin by Place of Work in an Asian Enclave (Recent Immigrants)

Place o f Origin

Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Metropolitan Statistical Areas Anaheim-Santa San Francisco, CA San Jose, C A Ana, C A Honolulu, HI n % n % n % n % 4 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 14 0.7 0 0.0 52 7.2 6 1.3 146 7.1 2 40.0 135 18.7 37 8.3

Cuba Nicaragua Central America (except Nicaragua) Mexico 1863 Colombia 10 South America 30 (except Colombia) 2067 Total

90.1 0.5 1.5

2 0 1

40.0 0.0 20.0

485 9 41

67.2 1.2 5.7

386 2 16

86.4 0.4 3.6

100.0

5

100.0

722

100.0

447

100.0


48


Table 7. Sample by Place of Origin by Place of Work in a Non-Enclave Location (Recent Immigrants) Place of Origin

Chicago, IL n % 2 0.2 7 0.7 70 7.0

Cuba Nicaragua Central America (except Nicaragua) 879 Mexico Colombia 15 South America 29 (except Colombia) 1002 Total

Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas Newark, NJ San Antonio, TX San Diego, CA n % n % n % 11 4.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 1.9 2 1.6 0 0.0 60 23.2 5 3.9 30 3.9

87.7 1.5 2.9 100.0

44 53 86

17.0 20.5 33.2

116 3 1

91.3 2.4 0.8

731 2 6

95.1 0.3 0.8

259

100.0

127

100.0

769

100.0

VARIABLES

The Male Socioeconomic Index Most of the work on ethnic enclaves has focused on immigrant income and selfemployment, while very little attention has been paid to the issue of jobs, despite the fact that the acquisition of good jobs is an important indicator of economic success. This study extends work on ethnic enclaves by examining occupational attainment among immigrant workers. Tables 8 and 9 show the top ten occupations held by at least one-quarter of each of the immigrant groups in this study. Table 8 shows that the largest portion of Latin American immigrant men who arrived in the U.S. before 1985 are employed overwhelmingly in blue collar jobs, although a sizeable proportion of Cubans, Nicaraguans, Colombians, and other South Americans work as managers and administrators and as supervisors and proprietors of sales occupations. The occupations that seem to particularly attract long-term immigrants are truck drivers and janitors and cleaners, in that order. However, there is considerable variability in the distribution of these jobs across ethnic groups. For example, the largest portion of Cubans and South Americans are employed in management and administrative jobs, while the largest portion of Nicaraguans and Central Americans are truck drivers. Nearly five percent of the Mexicans in this study are grounds keepers and gardeners, while over five percent of Colombians are janitors and cleaners. Cubans, Colombians, South Americans, and, to some extent, Nicaraguans, are attracted to similar jobs, and these jobs


Data and Methods

49

tend to be slightly higher on the Male Socioeconomic Index (MSEI) scale than those held in the greatest numbers by Mexicans and Central Americans. Table 8. Percent of Long-Term Immigrants in Commonly Held Occupations by Place of Origin

; Occupation (Census Code) Cuba Managers and Administrators 6.0 (022) Supervisors and Proprietors, 5.4 Sales Occupations (243) Cooks, except short order 0.5 (436) Janitors and Cleaners (453) 3.1 Groundskeepers and 1.0 Gardeners (486) Automobile Mechanics (505) 2.1 Machine Operators (779) 1.0 Assemblers (785) 1.5 Truck Drivers (804) 5.6 Helpers, Extractive 2.1 Occupations (869)

Central South Nicaragua America Mexico Colombia America 5.6 2.1 1.8 5.1 5.4

4.7

1.8

1.4

2.4

3.4

2.1

3.3

4.7

1.4

2.3

4.3 1.2

5.6 1.8

4.6 4.9

5.4 0.6

4.6 0.4

2.7 1.4 2.4 6.6 1.8

3.4 2.3 2.4 5.9 2.4

1.9 3.4 3.7 4.5 4.5

1.9 1.9 1.5 4.5 1.1

2.1 1.5 1.1 3.5 1.7

In Table 9 there is a slightly different picture. This table shows that the top ten jobs that account for at least 30 percent of all recent immigrants in the study are somewhat different than those reported in Table 8. Managers and administrators, supervisors and proprietors, automobile mechanics, and machine operators drop out of the list. They are replaced by food preparers, carpenters, painters, construction and maintenance workers, and non-construction laborers. In short, recent immigrants tend to be more concentrated in those jobs that require less English fluency or skills that are specific to the U S . labor market. It is interesting to note that there is somewhat more heterogeneity across place of origin for the occupations commonly held by recent versus long-term immigrants. Recent immigrants appear in larger proportions as janitors and cleaners, truck drivers, extractive occupation helpers, and cooks. There remains the pattern, however, of larger proportions in occupations shared by Cubans, Colombians and South Americans as one group, and Mexicans and Central Americans as another.



50

Table 9. Percent of Recent Immigrants in Commonly Held Occupations by Place of Origin

Occupation (Census Code) Cuba Cooks, except short order 0.6 (436) Miscellaneous Food 1.7 Preparation Occupations (44.4) Janitors and Cleaners (453) 5.8 Groundskeepers and 1.4 Gardners (486) Carpenters (567) 4.3 Painters, Construction, and 1.0 Maintenance (579) Assemblers (785) 1.4 Truck Drivers (804) 5.2 Helpers, Extractive 4.8 Occupations (869) Laborers, except construction 3.3 (889)

Place of Origin Central South Nicaragua America Mexico Colombia America 2.7 4.9 7.6 2.9 4.5 2.9

3.4

4.3

1.9

3.3

5.6 1.6

8.1 3.9

5.5 6.5

5.7 1.4

5.2 1.4

2.7 2.2

3.3 4.3

2.8 2.0

1.5 2.9

2.5 3.7

4.8 6.2 5.6

2.8 3.0 5.6

3.6 2.2 5.9

2.7 5.9 3.3

1.8 5.4 2.9

3.0

3.2

3.3

1.5

1.O

Given the variation in types of jobs held by place of origin and the importance of good jobs in economic adaptation, the need to examine immigrant occupational attainment more fully seems obvious. In this study, occupational attainment is measured using Hauser and Warren's (1997) Socioeconomic Index for male workers. MSEI is a continuous scale similar to Stevens and Featherman's (1981) SEI formulations. Based on 1990 three-digit census occupations, the MSEI is calculated by regressing occupation on education, occupational earnings, and job prestige. The job prestige measure used in the creation of the MSEI was taken from work by Nakao and Treas (1994) using the 1989 General Social Survey. A male-specific scale was chosen for this study, because it seemed more appropriate for the restricted sample. Tables 10 and 11 shows the average MSEI scores by place of origin for the respondents included in this study. The results of this table show that there is considerable variation in MSEI across place and between ethnic groups. The results also show that longer-term immigrants have considerably higher occupational attainment (MSEI) scores than recent immigrants. These differences will be discussed in greater detail in Chapters 5 and 6.


Data and Methods

51

While SEI scores are routinely used in occupational attainment research, there are two drawbacks in using the MSEI to study immigrant attainment. First, the use of the MSEI assumes that immigrants are interested in maximizing occupational prestige as well as earnings. This may be untrue, particularly for those immigrants engaging in circular migration (Kossoudji & Cobb-Clark, 1996). Second, use of the MSEI assumes that similar occupations require the same educational prerequisites and result in the same earnings for immigrant males as for other males in the population. Despite these difficulties, there are currently no immigrant-specific occupational attainment scales available based on 1990 Census occupational classifications. Consequently, MSEI is used as a good, alternative indicator of immigrant attainment. Table 10. Average Male Socioeconomic Index Scores (and Standard Deviations) by Place of Origin by Place of Work (Long-Term Immigrants). Place of Origin Central

Primary Metropolitan Statistical

(15.30) (12.85) Honolulu, Hawaii San Francisco, California San Jose, California


(9.17) 12.92 (0.00) 39.86 28.97 27.29 (14.92) (12.55) (12.77) 48.37 40.86 28.84 ---

---

(9.09) 43.65 (21.O 1) 24.08 (9.81) 24.08

South

(17.17) (14.94) 21.91 51.72 (0.00) (22.49) 36.50 35.97 (14.30) (14.74) 44.24 39.94

52


Table 11. Average Male Socioeconomic Index Scores (and Standard Deviations) by Place of Origin by Place of Work (Recent Immigrants). Place of Origin Central

Primary Metropolitan Statistical

(8.98)

(8.04)

Honolulu, Hawaii

---

---

San Francisco, California

---

San Jose, California

---

19.63 (9.40) 20.17

(10.14) 22.42 (3.30) 20.59 (9.78) 18.14

(8.23) 23.77 (0.00) 19.38 (7.46) 19.46

South

(8.80) ---

22.79 (10.57) 40.09

(14.72) 26.46 (0.OO) 23.12 (10.31) 31.82

The Independent Variables The predictor variables used for this study are shown in Table 12. These measures include time of entry into the U.S., place of origin, self-employment status, educational attainment, age, potential work experience, English speaking ability, disability status, marital status, and household headship. Many of these variables have been commonly used to predict occupational attainment in other studies. Age, education, English fluency, and work experience are widely accepted measures of human capital (Borjas, 1991; Model & Ladipo, 1996). It is expected that older, more educated, more experienced immigrants with good English skills will have higher occupational attainment than other immigrants, ceterus


Data and Methods

53

paribus. Work disability is also included since disabilities may lower occupational attainment through both physical limitations and discrimination (Tienda and Wilson, 1992). These human capital variables are included in the analysis, despite the fact that their effects may be unimportant within the enclave context (e.g., English language fluency should not predict occupational attainment where the market is dominated by Spanish speakers). Household characteristics including marital status and household headship are also included as control variables in the models. The role of these variables in predicting self-employment among enclave workers is well documented (Portes and Zhou, 1996; Sanders and Nee, 1996), while the relationship to occupational status attainment is less clear. It is expected, however, that married men, particularly those who are the household heads, face more social pressure to acquire good jobs than single men (Sanders and Nee, 1996). Self-employment is gaining increased attention as an important means of economic security for immigrant workers (Borjas, 1986; Evans, 1989; Min, 1988; Sanders & Nee, 1996; Waldinger, Ward, & Aldrich, 1985; Werbner, 1984). While some authors argue that the ability to enter into entrepreneurial ventures is a function of human capital (Borjas, 1986), others argue that factors such as age, education, and English ability explain only part of the transition to self-employment. Evans (1989), for example, contends that the size of the immigrant population and the "linguistic isolation" of the immigrant workers is also important, while Sanders and Nee (1996) demonstrate that family-related social capital factors also have an influence on immigrant entrepreneurship. While it is clear from the enclave literature that self-employment is at least one key to upward mobility, the relationship between self-employment and occupational attainment is less clear than the relationship between entrepreneurship and earnings. Nonetheless, self-employment is included in this study because of the possibility of this variable's interaction with other variables, particularly education. Time spent in the U.S. increases an immigrant's ability to acquire education and English skills. Additionally, each year spent in an enclave should be time spent building bounded solidarity and enforceable trust. Additional years of U S . residence should also bring an immigrant higher occupational attainment either through promotion or through more opportunities for self-employment. Consequently, year of entry is included in this analysis with categories determined by Census coding.


Latinos in Ethnic Enclaves Table 12. Independent Variables Used in this Study Independent variable place of origin

year of entry

self-employed

educational attainment

age experience2 ability to speak english disabled

married

head of household

Description Place of birth. Categories are Cuba, Nicaragua, Central America (isthmus countries except Nicaragua), Mexico, Colombia and South America (mainland except Colombia). Time of entry into the the U.S. Categories are 1987 to 1990,1985 to 1986,1980 to 1984,1970 to 1979,1960 to 1969 and 1959 or earlier. Class of worker is self-employed in own business, professional practice, or farm. This is a dichotomous variable coded 1 if self-employed and 0 otherwise. Years of schooling completed. Categories are less than high school (0 to 8 years of school completed), some high school (9 to 12 years of school completed, but no diploma), high school graduate (diploma or equivalent), some college (associates degree in an occupational or academic program or other college attendance with no degree completed), and college graduate (Bachelor's Master's, professional, or Doctorate degree). Years of age. This variable is measured continuously. Potential years of job experience. This is a continuous variable calculated as (age - years of school - 612. Self-assessment of English speaking ability. Categories are very well, well, not well and not at all. Physically or mentally limited in the amount or kind of work undertaken. This is a dichotomous variable coded 1 if respondent is disabled and 0 otherwise. Now manied and living with spouse. This is a dichotomous variable coded 1 if the respondent is married and living with his spouse and 0 otherwise. Relationship of person to other members of the household is reported as householder. This is a dichotomous variable coded 1 if the respondent is the householder and 0 otherwise.

Finally, place of origin is the predictor variable of most interest in this study. In order to determine if queuing or segmented assimilation are the most likely mechanisms controlling immigrant adaptation, it is necessary to separate origin effects. That is, if Cubans in the Miami enclave, for example, engage in preferential hiring practices that create greater opportunities for other Cubans,


Data and Methods

55

this can be determined only by controlling for place of origin effects. Place of origin in this study is reported place of birth categorized as Cuba, Nicaragua, Central America, Mexico, Colombia, and South America17. This categorization scheme assumes that immigrants will identify themselves and be identified by their birth place, despite their immigration history. The scheme also assumes a certain amount of internal homogeneity within broad geographic regions. Nicaraguans are separated from other Central Americans because of the unique circumstances surrounding the exodus from their homeland. Colombians are also separated from other South Americans because there is a Colombian enclave in New York City.

METHODOLOGY Within Area Models In order to test the hypotheses that immigrants will achieve occupational attainment that is less than or no different from the dominant enclave groups, Latino enclave PMSAs were analyzed separately using ordinary least-squares regression (OLS). OLS regression is a statistical technique that allows for the examination of the simultaneous impact of several variables on a single dependent variable-in this case, occupational attainment. The two samples (recent and longer-term immigrants) were analyzed separately in these models. Occupational attainment was regressed on place of origin, year of entry, self-employment, human capital, and household characteristics. Place of origin variables were dichotomized with the dominant enclave group omitted in each enclave's models, since the omitted-or reference-group is the group to which other groups are compared. Cubans are the reference group in the MiamiHialeah, Los Angeles-Long Beach, and Jersey City PMSA models, while Colombians serve as the omitted group in the New York City model. OLS models were not constructed for those areas with sample sizes less than 50, since small sample sizes may distort the findings. This is only a problem with the recent immigrant samples. The OLS models allow for an examination of the effects of place of origin on occupational attainment within each enclave controlling for other factors.

Across Area Models A comparison of the results of the OLS analysis should offer valuable information on the occupational attainment of different Latino immigrant groups relative to the dominant enclave ethnic group. However, such an analysis does not allow for the analysis of enclave effects separate from individual place effects. In other words, it may be the (hypothetical) case that Mexicans do better Copyright 2001 by Stephanie Bohon

56


in Los Angeles than in Miami because of features unique to the Los Angeles economy that have nothing to do with exploitation by Cuban-American or Cuban immigrants. Another procedure is needed to determine if the enclave phenomena has an effect on the attainment of immigrants. In order to examine context effects, regression models were run for both the recent and the longer-term immigrants in pooled samples from the various Latino, Asian, and non-enclave places. For the longer-term immigrant model, occupational attainment of all the long-term immigrants in this study are regressed against the variables used in the within area models. A place of work variable is also included as a dummy variable indicating place of work or unemployment in an Latino enclave, an Asian enclave, or a non-enclave area. Work in an Latino enclave is the omitted category. This analysis allows for the examination of place of work effects once the other variables are controlled. Another pooled OLS model was also constructed using the recent immigrant samples. In each of these models, Mexicans were selected as the omitted category because they appear in sizeable numbers across the three contexts and they represent one country of origin group. While this methodology allows for the testing of the question whether Latin American immigrants fare better versus no better in a Latino enclave area than in other areas, the extent to which discrimination may be occurring cannot be fully examined with an OLS model. In order to examine the average difference in MSEI attributable to discrimination across areas and between groups, OLS regression models were constructed for each place of origin group within each economic context where the samples sizes were sufficiently large (n 2 50). The average occupational attainment differences between Mexican workers and other workers was then decomposed into portions attributable to discrimination, endowments, and the interaction between the two using the method specified by Jones and Kelley (1984). The Jones and Kelley method was selected because it has a precedent in the literature on immigrant occupational attainment (Model & Ladipo, 1996). The formula allows for average differences between groups to be decomposed into three portions. The decomposition formula is as follows:


Data and Methods

where the average difference between the occupational attainment (yM-Y') between Mexican immigrants (M) and another ethnic group (I) is the sum of (A) discrimination, (B) endowments, and (C) an interaction term. Regression decomposition analysis results in coefficients that indicate the amount of shortfall occurring between the two groups (i.e., negative signs represent advantages over Mexicans). In other words, differences in average MSEI between Mexicans and other groups that can be explained by differences in education, English fluency, marital status, etc., comprise equation (B). The remaining difference is unexplained and is assumed to be at least partially the result of discrimination.18 While not amenable to parametric testing, the results of the decomposition analysis offer a major advantage over OLS regression alone. The decomposition analysis allows for an examination of how the discrimination component varies between enclave types by examining both the size and range of the discrimination components. By using decomposition, we can actually make rank types of labor markets in terms of the amount of discrimination that appears to be occurring in those places. The analysis of data are presented in Chapters Five, Six, and Seven. Chapter Five examines differences between dominant enclave groups and other enclave workers within each of the four Latino enclave areas using the technique outlined above. This analysis allows for a direct examination of queuing and segmented assimilation. Chapter Six compares occupational attainment for longterm immigrants across the different labor markets using both pooled OLS models and regression decomposition. Finally, Chapter Seven replicates the analysis in Chapter Six using the recent immigrant sample. The summary of the findings of these chapters and their implications for assimilation theory, enclave theory, and immigration policy are discussed in Chapter Eight.


CHAPTER FIVE

Occupational Attainment within Latino Enclaves

Segmented assimilation and queuing theory lend themselves to competing hypotheses regarding the effects of country of origin on immigrants' occupational attainment, as discussed in Chapter One. TWOof these sets of competing hypotheses pertain to the occupational attainment outcomes of different place of origin groups within the different Latino enclave areas. Question: Will Latino immigrants working in cities with Latino enclaves demonstrate lower or the same occupational attainment as the dominant enclave group after living in the United States for more than five years? Hypothesis H l a . Within cities with Latino economic enclaves, after more than five years in the U S . , Latino immigrant workers will demonstrate significantly lower occupational attainment, on average, than members of the dominant enclave group. Alternative Hypothesis H l b . After more than five years in the U S . , noncoethnic immigrants working in metropolitan areas with Latino enclaves will demonstrate average occupational attainment not significantly different from the dominant enclave group. Question: Will recent Latino immigrants working in cities with Latino enclaves demonstrate lower or the same occupational attainment as recent immigrants from the dominant enclave group ?



60

Hypothesis H2a. Recent Latin American immigrants (those entering the country in 1985 or later) working in metropolitan areas with Latino enclaves will report occupational attainment significantly lower, on average, than that of recent immigrants in the dominant enclave group. Alternative Hypothesis H2b. Recent Latin American immigrants working in metropolitan areas with Latino enclaves will report occupational attainment not significantly different from that of recent immigrants in the dominant enclave group. The interethnic competition hypotheses (Hla and H2a), based on queuing theory suggest that members of the dominant enclave group will exhibit higher levels of occupational attainment than other immigrants. The interethnic cooperation hypotheses (HI b and H2b), based on segmented assimilation theory suggests that occupational attainment will not vary significantly between different country of origin groups, once year of entry, self-employment, household characteristics and human capital are controlled for. In order to test these hypotheses, models of occupational attainment for immigrants residing in the Latino enclave PMSAs of Jersey City, Los-AngelesLong Beach, Miami-Hialeah, and New York City were constructed using first the long-term then the recent immigrant samples. It seems reasonable to begin the analysis with the test of these hypothesis, because processes within areas will have an effect on the analysis of across-area differences. An examination of the within-area models is also important because enclave theory has, for the most part, been predicated on work conducted within (rather than across) enclaves.

LONG-TERM RESIDENTS Descriptive Statistics Tables 13 through 16 show the averages and proportions of the dependent and independent variables for the long-term immigrant sample by place of origin. Each table presents data for one of the four Latino enclave cities. The results in Table 13 through 16 show that there is variation in average immigrant group MSEI scores in all four enclaves. Occupational attainment rankings range from the mid-thirties for Cubans to the low- to mid-twenties for Mexicans. Cuban immigrants have higher MSEI scores than the other national origin groups in Jersey City, Los Angeles, and New York. It is interesting to note, however, that South Americans and Colombians display higher average MSEI scores in Miami, where Cubans are found in the greatest numbers. Mexicans have the lowest MSEI scores across all of the enclaves where they


Occupational Attainment within Latino Enclaves

61

work in large numbers, with MSEI scores ranging from 25.10 in Los Angeles to 21.69 in New York. Table 13. Descriptive Statistics for the Jersey City PMSA (Long-Term Immigrants)

Cuba

Place of Origin* Central America Colombia

South America

MSEI Year of entry 1980 to 1984 1970 to 1979 1960 to 1969 1959 or earlier Self-employed Educational Attainment < high school Some high school High school grad Some college College graduate Age

Ability to Speak English Not at all Not well Well Very well Disabled Married Head of Household .79 .73 .68 .76 n 280 71 71 14 8 *Place of origin groups with sample sizes under 50 were omitted from the analysis. (Standard deviations in parenthesis)



62

Table 14. Descriptive Statistics for the Los Angeles-Long Beach PMSA (Long-Term Immigrants)

MSEI

Place of Origin Central South Cuba Nicaragua America Mexico ColombiaAmerica 35.67 31.96 26.03 25.10 35.58 34.76

Year of entry 1980 to 1984 1970 to 1979 1960 to 1969 1959 or earlier Self-employed Educational Attainment

Latinos in ethnic enclaves: immigrant workers and the competition for jobs

Skilled Immigrant and Native Workers in the United States: The Economic Competition Debate and Beyond (The New Americans) (Criminal Justice)

Votes and Violence: Electoral Competition and Ethnic Riots in India

Latinos in New England

The Family in Question: Immigrant and Ethnic Minorities in Multicultural Europe (IMISCOE Research)

Reining in the Competition for Capital

Immigrant languages in Europe

Economics for Social Workers

Law For Social Workers

Great Jobs for Computer Science Majors (Great Jobs for)

Latinos in a Changing Society

Extraordinary Jobs for Adventurers

Immigrant Languages in Europe

Latinos and Citizenship: The Dilemma of Belonging

Extraordinary Jobs in Leisure (Extraordinary Jobs)

Extraordinary Jobs in Media (Extraordinary Jobs)

Extraordinary Jobs in Entertainment (Extraordinary Jobs)

The Workers' Movement in Russia

Workers after Workers' States

The Changing Faces of Ireland: Exploring the Lives of Immigrant and Ethnic Minority Children

Extraordinary Jobs in the Service Sector (Extraordinary Jobs)

Expert Resumes For Computer And Web Jobs

Health and Safety: A Workbook for Social Care Workers (Knowledge and Skills for Social Care Workers)

From guest workers into Muslims: the transformation of Turkish immigrant associations in Germany

Latinos in ethnic enclaves: immigrant workers and the competition for jobs

Skilled Immigrant and Native Workers in the United States: The Economic Competition Debate and Beyond (The New Americans) (Criminal Justice)

Votes and Violence: Electoral Competition and Ethnic Riots in India

Latinos in New England

The Family in Question: Immigrant and Ethnic Minorities in Multicultural Europe (IMISCOE Research)

Reining in the Competition for Capital

Immigrant languages in Europe

Economics for Social Workers

Law For Social Workers

Great Jobs for Computer Science Majors (Great Jobs for)

Latinos in a Changing Society

Extraordinary Jobs for Adventurers

Immigrant Languages in Europe

Latinos and Citizenship: The Dilemma of Belonging

Extraordinary Jobs in Leisure (Extraordinary Jobs)

Extraordinary Jobs in Media (Extraordinary Jobs)

Extraordinary Jobs in Entertainment (Extraordinary Jobs)

The Workers' Movement in Russia

Workers after Workers' States

The Changing Faces of Ireland: Exploring the Lives of Immigrant and Ethnic Minority Children

Extraordinary Jobs in the Service Sector (Extraordinary Jobs)

Expert Resumes For Computer And Web Jobs

Health and Safety: A Workbook for Social Care Workers (Knowledge and Skills for Social Care Workers)

From guest workers into Muslims: the transformation of Turkish immigrant associations in Germany

Recommend Documents