Sie sind auf Seite 1von 28

Segmented AssimilationZulema Valdez Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UK and Malden, USATSQThe Sociological Quarterly0038-02532006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

2006473397424LATINO IDENTITY AND SEGMENTED ASSIMILATION

The Sociological Quarterly ISSN 0038-0253

SEGMENTED ASSIMILATION AMONG MEXICANS IN THE SOUTHWEST


Zulema Valdez*
Texas A&M University

This article examines segmented assimilation among foreign-born and U.S.-born Mexicans. Using the 2000 census, this article investigates how immigrants length of residence in the United States and nativity affect the earnings and self-employment outcomes of low- and highskilled Mexican men and women in the Southwest. Findings reveal that the earnings of lowskilled, foreign-born Mexicans decrease as immigrants reside in the United States longer and are generally lower among the U.S. born than the foreign born. In contrast, the earnings of highskilled, foreign-born Mexicans increase as immigrants reside in the United States longer and are generally higher among U.S.-born Mexicans than foreign-born Mexicans. Moreover, selfemployment participation decreases as immigrants reside in the United States longer and is lower among the U.S. born than the foreign born, regardless of skill. Since self-employment results in lower earnings, a decline in self-employment indicates economic progress. Furthermore, men are generally better off than women. Drawing from segmented assimilation theory, ndings support the downward assimilation hypothesis among low-skilled Mexicans and the Anglo-conformity hypothesis among high-skilled Mexicans. Overall, this research provides evidence of intragroup differences in segmented assimilation among foreign-born and U.S.-born Mexicans in the Southwest.

Socioeconomic assimilation refers to the gradual process of incorporation, as immigrants and their descendants integrate into the United States economy (Myrdal 1944; Park 1950; Warner and Srole 1945; Lieberson 1963; Gordon 1964; Alba 1990; Waters 1990; Gans 1992). Classic assimilation theory, specically that of Anglo-conformity, predicts a gradual convergence to the socioeconomic outcomes of middle-class, non-Hispanic whites (Lieberson 1963:8; Gordon 1964:74; Gans 1992:174; Portes and Zhou 1993:82). Yet, this upwardly mobile path is not guaranteed. Contemporary research on immigrant adaptation observes a mismatch between the assumptions of classic assimilation theory and the empirical reality of newer non-European ethnic and racial groups (Borjas 1990; Portes and Rumbaut 1990; Glazer 1993; Portes and Zhou 1993; Alba and Nee 1997; Zhou 1997; Kasinitz, Mollenkopf, and Waters 2004:394). Rather than a pattern of gradual convergence to the white middle class, some ethnic and racial groups proceed in the opposite direction, toward permanent poverty and assimilation into the underclass (Portes and Rumbaut 2001:82)what has been coined downward assimilation (Model 1991; Portes and Zhou 1993; Butcher 1994; Fernandez-Kelly and Schaufer 1994; Zhou 1997;

*Please direct all correspondence to Zulema Valdez, Department of Sociology, Texas A&M University, 4351 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4351; e-mail: zvaldez@tamu.edu
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

397

Segmented Assimilation

Zulema Valdez

Portes and Rumbaut 2001). For example, Kalmijn (1996) nds that Spanish- and Frenchspeaking Caribbean immigrants experience a decline in their socioeconomic outcomes that eventually reect those of the U.S.-born black population. Recent studies on Mexicans socioeconomic assimilation observe two contradictory trends. The rst reveals a trend toward declining socioeconomic outcomes. This research shows that Mexicans socioeconomic development is arrested (Schoeni 1997), on the decline (Morales and Bonilla 1993; Ortiz 1996), and may reect a pattern of downward assimilation (Fernandez-Kelly and Schaufer 1994; Portes and Rumbaut 2001). A second trend suggests that Mexicans are making economic progress; although disadvantaged, this group remains distinct from the underclass (Moore and Pinderhughes 1993; Waldinger and Feliciano 2004). This article expands upon previous research by examining Mexicans segmented assimilation. Using the 2000 census, this study investigates how immigrants length of residence in the United States and nativity affect socioeconomic assimilation, as measured by workers earnings, self-employment participation, and self-employment earnings. Assimilation takes place over time and generations; therefore, this investigation attempts to capture assimilation in progress by conducting an analysis of the socioeconomic outcomes of foreign-born Mexicans (as length of residence increases) and U.S.born Mexicans against U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites. Furthermore, since differences in Mexicans economic incorporation are rooted in gender (Xu and Lefer 1992; Hondagneu-Sotelo 1994; Schoeni 1998) and skill-level (Enchautegui 1998), I conduct separate analyses by these factors to expose divergent trends in Mexicans socioeconomic assimilation. This research uses one common measure of socioeconomic attainmentworkers hourly earningsand further develops this concept to include self-employment participation and self-employment earnings (as two additional measures). Self-employment participation is associated with economic mobility among entrepreneurial ethnic groups, such as Cubans and Koreans (Portes and Bach 1985; Light and Bonacich 1988; Waldinger et al. 1990; Rath 2000; Lee 2002). However, since Mexican self-employment participation is negligible, it is often overlooked (Raijman and Tienda 2000:783). Whether this economic activity contributes to Mexicans economic progress is unclear. Thus, this research expands the scope of socioeconomic status beyond workers outcomes only and contributes to the ethnic entrepreneurship literature by examining this understudied group. The question of Mexican socioeconomic assimilation is important to the U.S. economy in general and the Mexican community in particular, since the Mexican population is large and growing. Recent census gures show that Mexicans, the largest Hispanic group in the United States, increased their numbers by 52.9 percent from 1990 to 2000 (from 13.5 to 20.6 million) (Guzman 2001). Although migration patterns are increasingly expanding across the United States, three-fourths of the Mexican population remains concentrated in the Southwest (Guzman 2001).1 This research focuses on the Southwest for two reasons. First, the Southwest contains a large and diverse Mexican population spanning time and generations. As such, the Southwest provides the most diverse
398
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Zulema Valdez

Segmented Assimilation

Mexican-origin population in the United States from which to assess variation in hourly earnings across length of residence, nativity, gender, and skill level. Second, the Southwest is a geographically concentrated area of immigrant and ethnic settlement, a necessary ingredient for the formation of ethnic economies and ethnic entrepreneurs (Wilson and Portes 1980; Wilson and Martin 1982; Portes and Bach 1985:343; Logan et al. 1994:694). Since self-employed Mexicans constitute a small subgroup of the Mexican-origin population, the Southwest provides a large, ethnically concentrated, geographic region from which to draw a sufcient number of self-employed Mexicans for analysis. SEGMENTED ASSIMILATION Segmented assimilation attempts to explain destinies of convergence and divergence (Zhou 1997:984) among todays ethnic and racial minority groups (Alba and Nee 1997; Zhou 1997, 2001; Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Kasinitz et al. 2004:395). Segmented assimilation theory offers two hypotheses to explain Mexicans socioeconomic assimilation: downward assimilation and Anglo-conformity.2 The downward assimilation hypothesis suggests that individual and group disadvantages combine with a negative context of reception, which results in a downward trend in socioeconomic outcomes. On average, Mexicans are a disadvantaged group, as they possess limited human capital (education and work experience) and English skills (Borjas 1985, 1990; Borjas and Tienda 1993; Phillips and Massey 1999; Portes and Rumbaut 2001). Portes and Rumbaut (2001:282) argue that such deciencies are reproduced over time, as Mexican immigrants and their descendants acculturate into the U.S. economy and society. For example, they observe a decline in educational attainment as foreign-born Mexicans reside in the United States longer, and they note that U.S.-born Mexicans dropout rates are higher than those of their foreign-born counterparts (chaps. 8 and 9). Similarly, Fernandez-Kelly and Schaufer (1994:678) characterize Mexicans as a highly homogenous and vulnerable group whose declining educational attainment and skills constitute downward assimilation. Furthermore, research on wage inequality demonstrates that the wage gap between Mexicans and non-Hispanic whites is partially explained by human capital differences. Low human capital relegates Mexicans to lowwage, low-skilled occupations with limited opportunities for advancement (Schoeni 1997). Such occupations maintain wage discrepancies over time and in some instances increase the wage gap (Schoeni 1997; Enchautegui 1998). A negative context of reception also contributes to Mexicans socioeconomic decline. Nativist policies, a demand for low-wage, low-skilled labor, citizenship status, and poor returns on human capital combine to ensure Mexicans weak economic performance (Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Sanders and Nee 1996). In particular, legal status affects labor market outcomes. Undocumented immigrants face greater hardships in employment and wages (Kossoudji and Cobb-Clark 2002) and are more likely to face exploitation and discrimination than permanent legal residents or naturalized citizens (Donato, Durand, and Massey 1992). Moreover, a continued climate of hostility against Mexican immigration (Fernandez-Kelly and Schaufer 1994:681) leads to persistent
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

399

Segmented Assimilation

Zulema Valdez

discrimination that affects their economic development. Purveyors of the downward assimilation hypothesis conclude that human capital constraints coupled with an unfavorable context of reception hinders economic progress. Under these conditions, Mexican immigrants and their descendants may not improve their economic conditions over time; what is more, they may experience downward assimilation. In contrast to the downward assimilation perspective, the Anglo-conformity hypothesis posits that assimilating into a mainstream American (white) middle class culture (Kasinitz et al. 2004:395) provides an opportunity for upward mobility. Historically, southern central Europeans, such as Germans, followed this path (Glazer and Moynihan 1963:313); today, eastern European Jews are following in their footsteps (Alba and Nee 1997:836). As Kasinitz et al. (2004) conclude, we now know that those with Europeanborn grandparents or even more distant European ancestors did assimilate, even as they reshaped that mainstream and created new meanings for their ethnic ancestries (p. 394). Similarly, Alba and Nee (2003) argue that existing immigration policy and civil rights legislation allow contemporary immigrant groups from Asia, Africa, and Latin America to assimilate into and remake the mainstream. Accordingly, although evidence reveals a downward trend in Mexicans socioeconomic outcomes (Tienda and Wilson 1992; Tienda and Singer 1995; Schoeni 1997), research also demonstrates economic progress. In comparing joblessness among Mexicans, non-Hispanic whites, blacks, and Puerto Ricans, Waldinger and Feliciano (2003) nd that Mexicans are closer to non-Hispanic whites in their rates of joblessness than blacks or Puerto Ricans, groups perceived to experience downward assimilation. Consequently, they argue that Mexicans are moving ahead (Waldinger and Feliciano 2004:29). Allensworth (1997) also reveals uniform evidence of Mexicans economic advancement. He nds that as foreign-born Mexicans reside in the United States longer, their earnings increase and eventually reach parity with those of their U.S.-born counterparts (although earnings do not converge with those of U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites). Smiths (2003) ndings are more optimistic, as he concludes, Each new Latino generation not only has higher incomes than their forefathers, but their economic status converged toward the white men with whom they competed (p. 319). Hence, although disadvantaged, these studies nd evidence of Angloconformity among Mexicans. Overall, such convincing and contradictory evidence suggests that two divergent trends explain the Mexican case. Whereas some Mexicans experience a decline in socioeconomic outcomes, others experience improvement. To illustrate, Zhou (2001) maintains that on some measures, such as education, Mexicans continue to lag behind other ethnic groups, but on others, such as gainful employment, Mexicans fare better (Zhou 2001:203). Additionally, Rodriguez (1993) concedes that a majority of Mexicans in the Southwest face high rates of joblessness, poverty, and crime; yet, he also observes a vibrant and thriving Mexican ethnic economy. Similarly, Valdez (1993) suggests that in highcrime, high-poverty Southwest border towns, social mobility is possible for a small proportion of Mexican Americans whose class interests often conict with a majority of this population (p. 173). Camarillo and Bonilla (2001) echo this sentiment, and conclude that tens of thousands of second- and third-generation Mexican Americans . . . seem to
400
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Zulema Valdez

Segmented Assimilation

be following a stair-step rise in status, while others remain trapped as a class of severely impoverished people living in urban barrios. . . . The Hispanic underclass (p. 131). Ultimately, it is likely that Mexicans socioeconomic assimilation patterns are segmented, with signs of group progress matched by signs of decline and stagnation (p. 104). In this article, I investigate how these two divergent patterns of segmented assimilation affect Mexicans socioeconomic outcomes, as measured by workers earnings, selfemployment participation and self-employment earnings. Since assimilation is a gradual process, I compare the socioeconomic outcomes of foreign-born Mexicans (as length of residence increases) and U.S.-born Mexicans to those of U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites. In addition, I conduct separate analyses by gender and skill-level since these factors have been shown to affect the economic incorporation of women and ethnic and racial minority groups. For example, gender discrimination in the workplace decreases womens wages relative to men (Xu and Lefer 1992). Furthermore, low-skilled workers face greater hardships and disadvantages in the U.S. economy. To illustrate, Enchautegui (1998) nds that the wages of low-skilled workers are on the decline and further notes that low-skilled, foreign-born workers are more likely to face poverty than the U.S.-born (p. 812). Hence, I consider gender and skill level to expose divergent trends in Mexicans socioeconomic assimilation, which may inform patterns of segmented assimilation. Below, I briey summarize each hypothesis of segmented assimilation theory as it applies to the socioeconomic outcomes of Mexicans and draw out the empirical implications of each. EMPIRICAL IMPLICATIONS The downward assimilation hypothesis posits that Mexicans will experience a decline in socioeconomic outcomes as they integrate into permanent poverty and assimilation into the underclass (Portes and Zhou 1993:82). Thus, as foreign-born Mexicans reside in the United States longer, their socioeconomic outcomes will not improve and may even decline. Furthermore, U.S.-born Mexicans will not outperform their foreign-born counterparts, nor will their socioeconomic outcomes converge with those of U.S.-born, nonHispanic whites.3 Finally, if skill-level affects economic integration, its consideration may expose divergent trends in Mexicans socioeconomic outcomes. Specically, low-skilled Mexicans may lag behind high-skilled Mexicans and experience downward assimilation. The second hypothesis maintains a classic notion of Anglo-conformity and eventual integration into the white middle class (Warner and Srole 1945; Gans 1992:175; Portes and Zhou 1993:82). Specically, a gradual increase in foreign-born Mexicans socioeconomic outcomes will be observed as they reside in the U.S. longer. Moreover, U.S.-born Mexicans will outperform their foreign-born counterparts (although the socioeconomic outcomes of U.S.-born Mexicans may lag behind those of U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites). Furthermore, if skill-level exposes divergent trends, then high-skilled Mexicans will outperform low-skilled Mexicans. Last, although men and women may experience similar trends in segmented assimilation rooted in skill-level, womens socioeconomic outcomes may trail those of men.
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

401

Segmented Assimilation

Zulema Valdez

DATA This analysis is based on the 5 percent sample of the 2000 census (Integrated Public Use Microdata Series [IPUMS]). The sample is drawn from working-age (25 to 64 years old), U.S.-born, non-Hispanic white, U.S.-born Mexican and foreign-born Mexican men and women who live in the Southwest (N = 845,122). The Southwest includes Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. I identify Mexicans using the census questions on race and Hispanic origin. Mexicans are those who report their race as non-Hispanic white and/or other race (Hispanic origin or Spanish write-in) in response to the race question and Mexican in response to the Hispanic origin question.4 Foreign-born and U.S.-born status is determined using the census questions on ancestry and country of birth. The foreign-born Mexicans are further classied by length of residence. Length of residence is dened categorically using the census variable, year of immigration. In the 2000 census, year of immigration refers to the year that the respondent came to live in the United States (Ruggles et al. 2003).5 Recent immigrants are those who arrived between 1990 and 2000 (10 years or less). Intermediate residents are those who immigrated between 1980 and 1989 (11 to 20 years). Long-term residents are those who immigrated before 1980 (21 years or more). Some research cautions that using a single cross section of data to predict selfemployment participation (Borjas 1986:490) and earnings (Borjas 1985:467) over time assumes that the quality of different immigrant cohorts is constant, which leads to biased results. Regarding the Mexican-origin population, however, this assumption is reasonable given that Mexico has been one of the top sending countries of legal and undocumented immigration since the 1960s. Legal immigrants tend to have higher skills, education, and English prociency, while undocumented immigrants tend to have lower skills, education, and English prociency. Since the composition of this group includes both legal and undocumented immigrants in large numbers (Fix and Passel 1994:2935), the quality of this group is arguably stable over time. The sample is further separated by gender and skill, the latter measured by Duncans socioeconomic index of occupations (SEI), which classies occupations based on education and income (Duncan 1961; Ruggles et al. 2003). I dene low-skilled persons as those whose occupations fall in the bottom one-third of the SEI scale (lower skill and lower wage); high-skilled persons are those whose occupations are found in the top one-third of the SEI scale (higher skill and higher wage). Those who fall in the middle (approximately 40 percent of the original sample) are dropped from this analysis for a total of 507,855 persons. By using the SEI scale of occupations to classify respondents, economic returns are more closely aligned with actual labor market experience and prospects. Socioeconomic Status I use three indicators of socioeconomic status: hourly earnings, self-employment participation, and self-employment earnings. I measure hourly earnings using the census variables total personal earned income, which includes earnings from wages and salaries, hours usually worked, and number of weeks worked among persons who identify as an
402

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Zulema Valdez

Segmented Assimilation

employee (as someone who works for someone else). Because earnings vary at the extremes, I use logged earnings in the analysis. Self-employment is dened using the census variable, class of worker. Although self-employment encompasses a wide range of activities, the majority of the self-employed (approximately 80 percent) are small business owners who work on their own account, hire one or no employees, or rely on unpaid family labor (Hakim 1988; Rath 2000). Respondents are classied as selfemployed (coded 1) if they identify as self-employed in their own incorporated or unincorporated business, professional practice, or farm, or coded 0 if not (i.e., workers). Furthermore, I assess self-employment earnings using the census variable total personal earned income, among those who identify as self-employed (someone who works on his or her own account or own enterprise). The self-employment earnings variable is also logged. Background Characteristics Differences in hourly earnings, self-employment participation, and self-employment earnings are affected by human capital (education and work experience). In this analysis, age is included as a human capital variable since as people get older, they are likely to acquire more work experience (Borjas 1985; Archer 1991) and skills and knowledge valued in the U.S. economy (Tienda and Singer 1995). Education is dened as a series of dummy variables that capture eighth grade or less (reference group), ninth grade through high school graduate, some college through bachelors degree, and graduate or professional degree. In addition, I include English prociency as an indicator of human capital, since English prociency has been shown to be a valued skill in the mainstream economy, especially among immigrants (Tienda and Wilson 1992; Light and Roach 1996). English prociency is dummy coded, with the ability to speak English well or very well coded as 1 and not well or not at all coded as 0. Married status affects socioeconomic outcomes. Specically, being married improves mens earnings (Kalmijn 1996) and increases mens self-employment participation (Light and Bonacich 1988). Whether married status has the same effect on womens earnings and self-employment will be assessed here. Married status is dened as married (coded as 1) and other (single, widowed, divorced) (coded as 0). Citizenship status affects the labor market prospects and socioeconomic outcomes of the foreign-born Mexicans (Tienda and Singer 1995). Citizenship status is dened as U.S. citizen or U.S. citizen by naturalization (the latter among the foreign born) (coded as 1) and not a citizen (i.e., legal permanent residents and the undocumented) (coded as 0). There are differences among noncitizens. For instance, undocumented workers are more likely to face exploitation (Portes and Bach 1985; Donato et al. 1992), fewer job opportunities, and slower wage growth than legal permanent residents (Kossoudji and Cobb-Clark 2002). Still, immigrants who have adjusted their status from undocumented to legal, permanent residents are, on average, younger, less educated, and report fewer years of U.S. residence than the total foreign-born population (Tienda and Singer 1995:115). Hence, although this latter category includes undocumented immigrants and permanent legal residents (e.g., those with a green card), it is likely to capture the
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

403

Segmented Assimilation

Zulema Valdez

harsher context of reception among noncitizens, many of whom are younger, less educated, report fewer years of U.S. residence, and entered the United States illegally. Finally, industry is included as an additional control variable, with retail industry serving as the reference group. Table 1 presents some descriptive characteristics of the sample. With respect to age, the U.S.-born, non-Hispanic, white population is at least three years older than the U.S.born Mexican or foreign-born population, on average (43 years compared to 40 years among U.S.-born Mexicans and 37.5 years among foreign-born Mexicans). Findings also indicate that foreign-born Mexicans are less educated than their U.S.-born counterparts, and U.S.-born Mexicans are less educated than U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites. Fully 85.7 percent of foreign-born men and 81.5 percent of foreign-born women report earning a high school education or less, but only around 5 percent report earning a bachelors degree or better. In comparison, 13 percent of U.S.born Mexican men and 15 percent of U.S.-born Mexican women received a bachelors degree or better. U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites are twice as likely to hold a graduate or professional degree as U.S.-born Mexican men and women. Moreover, and not surprisingly, U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites and Mexicans are uent in English; however, only 50 percent of foreign-born Mexicans report speaking English well or very well. Around 60 percent of this working-age population is married. The U.S.-born, non-Hispanic white men are more likely to be married (66.5 percent), followed by foreign-born Mexican men (64.3 percent), U.S.-born, non-Hispanic, white women (61.5 percent), and U.S.-born Mexican men (60.3 percent). The U.S.-born Mexican women are least likely to be married (56.4 percent). Citizenship status is a birthright for those born in the United States, so citizenship status is recorded here for the foreign-born only. Only 25.3 percent of men and 31.7 percent of women identify as naturalized citizens, and approximately 75 percent of foreign-born men and 60 percent of foreign-born women are noncitizens (legal permanent residents or the undocumented). The residential distribution of U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites, U.S.-born Mexicans, and foreign-born Mexicans is similar across the Southwest. Fully 85 percent of nonHispanic whites and Mexicans reside in just two states with differences among Mexicans noted by nativity. The majority of U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites (45 percent) and foreign-born Mexicans (55 percent) reside in California, followed by Texas. The majority of U.S.-born Mexicans reside in Texas (48 percent), followed by California (38 percent). Following California and Texas, non-Hispanic whites concentrate in Colorado, Arizona, and then New Mexico; Mexicans concentrate in Arizona rst, Colorado second, and New Mexico third. Just over 30 percent of foreign-born Mexican men and women identify as recent immigrants to the United States (10 years or less). This number increases among intermediate residents (11 to 20 years); 42 percent of men and 39 percent of women are found in this mid-range category. A decrease is noted among long-term, foreign-born men and women (26 percent and 30 percent, respectively).
404
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Zulema Valdez

TABLE 1. Means of Variables for U.S.-Born Whites, U.S.-Born Mexicans, and Foreign-Born Mexicans in the Southwest, Aged 2564 in 2000 White Men U.S.-born 43 0.9 27.4 58.5 13.2 99.7 66.5 99.7 61.5 97.2 60.3 50.4 64.3 25.3 7.0 54.6 3.0 1.6 33.8 NA NA NA 32.1 41.9 26.1 0.6 25.7 62.1 11.6 7.0 45.4 42.7 5.0 45.4 39.4 13.2 2.0 5.3 41.4 48.0 5.3 97.8 56.4 43 40 37 40 U.S.-born US-born Foreign-born U.S.-born Women Men Women Foreign-born 38 40.8 39.8 17.2 2.1 47.9 61.6 31.7 7.1 38.8 3.5 3.0 47.6 NA NA NA 6.4 56.9 2.4 1.6 32.8 31.6 38.4 30.0 Mexican

Age Education Eighth grade or less Ninth through high school graduate Some college through bachelors Graduate or professional degree

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Speaks English Married status Citizenship status 9.0 44.7 10.3 2.3 33.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 9.2 44.6 10.4 2.3 33.4 6.9 37.7 3.7 3.4 48.3

State (percent) Arizona California Colorado New Mexico Texas

Length of Residence in United States (percent) Recent (less than 10 years) Intermediate (1120 years) Long-term (21 years or more)

Segmented Assimilation

405

Source: 2000 5 percent Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS), U.S. Bureau of the Census. Notes: NA, not applicable; SEI, socioeconomic index.

406

TABLE 1. Continued White Men U.S.-born 24.00 2.8 55,617 48.6 3.7 68,724 49.5 3.7 16.0 392,098 10.2 339,379 49.4 3.7 39.3 3.4 8.9 31,039 33,632 44,903 52.8 3.9 37.7 3.4 23.8 2.9 30,613 28.9 3.1 8.7 35,998 15.75 2.4 31,645 15.65 2.4 34,395 10.86 2.1 23,171 U.S.-born US-born Foreign-born Women Men Women U.S.-born 12.25 2.2 24,166 46.5 3.7 26,129 39.7 3.4 4.9 27,730 Foreign-born 8.06 1.7 14,949 27.0 3.0 17,307 25.4 2.9 7.8 18,878 Mexican

Segmented Assimilation

Earnings Hourly earnings Logged hourly earnings Total earnings

Occupational status (SEI score): SEI Log of SEI

Self-employed total earnings

Self-employed occupational status (SEI score) Self-employed SEI Log of self-employed SEI

Self-employed (percent) Unweighted N

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Source: 2000 5 percent Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS), U.S. Bureau of the Census. Notes: NA, not applicable; SEI, socioeconomic index.

Zulema Valdez

Zulema Valdez

Segmented Assimilation

Generally, foreign-born Mexicans are younger, more likely to concentrate in California, and are less educated than their U.S.-born counterparts. U.S.-born Mexicans are younger, more likely to concentrate in Texas, and are less educated than U.S.-born, nonHispanic whites. These factors, along with differences in married status, citizenship status, and industry, contribute to each groups overall socioeconomic outcomes. To examine segmented assimilation among Mexicans, I conduct a multivariate analysis that investigates how immigrants length of residence in the United States and nativity affect the socioeconomic outcomes of Mexicans, as compared to those of U.S.-born, nonHispanic whites, while holding constant these inuential background factors and considering gender and skill level. ANALYSIS STRATEGY In Table 2, I present the unstandardized ordinary least squares (OSL) regression coefcients of hourly earnings and the logistic regression odds ratios of self-employment participation among foreign-born Mexicans (as length of residence increases) and U.S.-born Mexicans against U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites. In Table 3, I present OLS regression coefcients of self-employment earnings among foreign-born Mexicans (as length of residence increases) against U.S.-born Mexicans. Findings are presented in terms of percent change. FINDINGS Earnings To observe gradual changes in hourly earnings, I focus on length of residence among the foreign born and nativity in model 1 of Table 2. Background characteristics that include human capital, married status, citizenship status, and industry are added to the model in model 2 of Table 2. Model 1 of Table 2 reveals large differences in the hourly earnings of foreign-born and U.S.-born Mexicans, when compared to U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites. The hourly earnings of foreign-born and U.S.-born Mexicans are signicantly lower than those of U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites. Moreover, although foreign-born earnings improve as immigrants reside in the United States longer, the hourly earnings of U.S.-born Mexicans remain signicantly higher than those of their foreign-born counterparts. With the inclusion of background characteristics in model 2 of Table 2, foreign-born and U.S.-born Mexicans continue to earn less than U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites, more so among males than females, regardless of skill. In addition, ndings reveal differences in earnings by skill, length of residence, and nativity. Specically, and regardless of gender, the earnings of low-skilled, U.S.-born Mexicans are lower than those of their foreign-born counterparts, while the earnings of high-skilled, U.S.-born Mexicans are higher than those of their foreign-born counterparts. For example, as length of residence increases, the earnings of low-skilled, foreign-born men increase from 15 percent lower earnings among recent immigrants to 6 percent lower earnings among long-term
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

407

408
Women Self-employment (odds ratios) Low skilled 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 High skilled Low skilled High skilled Log hourly earnings Self-employment (odds ratios) Low skilled 2 High skilled 1 2 0.102*** (0.002) 0.001*** (0.000) 0.091** (0.031) 0.351*** (0.030) 0.674*** (0.031) 1.246*** (0.035) 1.745*** (0.036) 3.011*** (0.062) 1.075 (0.099) 0.733** (0.098) 1.040 (0.099) 0.133*** (0.014) 0.383*** (0.015) 0.565*** (0.030) 1.123*** (0.006) 0.999*** (0.000) 1.186*** (0.007) 0.999*** (0.000) 0.042*** (0.003) 0.000*** (0.000) 0.074*** (0.002) 0.001*** (0.000) 0.186*** (0.041) 0.474*** (0.041) 0.818*** (0.041) 1.050*** (0.009) 1.000*** (0.000) 1.199*** (0.051) 1.715*** (0.054) 2.030*** (0.086) 1.163*** (0.009) 0.999*** (0.000) 0.778 (0.148) 0.887 (0.147) 1.246 (0.148) 0.154*** (0.026) 0.224*** (0.005) 0.021 (0.035) 1.408*** (0.045) 1.398*** (0.016) 1.080 (0.056) 0.958 (0.090) 1.088*** (0.017) 1.038 (0.120) 0.101*** (0.018) 0.072*** (0.007) 0.088*** (0.021) 0.068* (0.032) 0.084*** (0.005) 0.047 (0.046) 1.408*** (0.068) 1.554*** (0.023) 0.972 (0.085) 0.708** (0.126) 1.373*** (0.022) 1.206 (0.191) 0.173*** (0.026) 0.280*** (0.021) 27.531*** (0.048) 1.936*** (0.087) 1.185 (0.092) 0.971 (0.078) 0.322*** (0.026) 0.466*** (0.092) 0.073 (0.047) 0.506*** (0.043) 6.594*** (0.070) 0.844 (0.372) 1.607** (0.150) 0.521** (0.206)

TABLE 2. Regression of Hourly Earnings and Self-Employment Participation by Immigrants Length of Residence in the United States and Nativity among Mexicans and against U.S.-born Whites, Aged 2564 in 2000 (Models 1 and 2)

Segmented Assimilation

Men

Log hourly earnings

Low skilled

High skilled

Independent Variables

Age

Age (squared)

0.051*** (0.002) 0.001*** (0.000)

Education Ninth through high school Some college through BA Graduate/ Professional

0.149*** (0.008) 0.307*** (0.008) 0.463*** (0.018)

Speaks English well

Married

Citizen

0.121*** (0.010) 0.297*** (0.004) 0.099*** (0.012)

Industry Agriculture

Mining

0.290*** (0.012) 0.130*** (0.016)

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Zulema Valdez

Eighth grade or less is the reference category. Retail is the reference category. U.S.-born whites are the reference group. *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 (two-tailed tests). Source: 2000 5 percent Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS), U.S. Bureau of the Census. Notes: Estimated standard errors in parentheses. is not applicable.

Men Self-employment (odds ratios) Low skilled 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 High skilled Low skilled High skilled Low skilled Log hourly earnings Self-employment (odds ratios) High skilled 2

Women

Zulema Valdez

Log hourly earnings

Low skilled

High skilled

Independent Variables

Utilities

Construction

Manufacturing

Wholesale

Transportation

Information services

Finance

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society 0.290*** (0.021) 0.177*** (0.011) 0.307*** (0.009) 0.180*** (0.012) 0.307*** (0.014) 0.224*** (0.011) 0.320*** (0.010) 0.216*** (0.009) 0.057*** (0.008) 0.160*** (0.012) 0.053*** (0.016) 0.079*** (0.013) 14.105*** (0.043) 1.443*** (0.052) 1.754*** (0.071) 5.640*** (0.048) 4.402*** (0.084) 6.090*** (0.060) 14.139*** (0.047) 0.722*** (0.089) 2.493*** (0.057) 16.912*** (0.046) 4.067*** (0.030) 0.541*** (0.033) 1.325*** (0.039) 0.514*** (0.066) 0.999 (0.042) 1.980*** (0.031) 3.572*** (0.025) 0.973 (0.029) 3.582*** (0.035) 2.134*** (0.049) 0.492*** (0.090) 0.063* (0.030) 0.182*** (0.018) 0.018 (0.030) 0.385*** (0.023) 0.258*** (0.039) 0.432*** (0.024) 0.089*** (0.021) 0.119*** (0.016) 0.111*** (0.017) 0.034 (0.018) 0.378*** (0.027) 0.519*** (0.038) 0.330*** (0.021) 0.438*** (0.012) 0.311*** (0.018) 0.326*** (0.026) 0.350*** (0.013) 0.366*** (0.011) 0.263*** (0.010) 0.021* (0.009) 0.121*** (0.013) 0.024 (0.019) 0.318*** (0.015) 5.686*** (0.077) 0.618*** (0.073) 0.691* (0.147) 0.692*** (0.090) 2.051*** (0.115) 1.584*** (0.073) 5.880*** (0.059) 2.115*** (0.051) 0.653*** (0.063) 12.858*** (0.052) 2.039*** (0.067) 0.607*** (0.052) 1.224** (0.064) 0.664*** (0.117) 0.802*** (0.055) 0.601*** (0.045) 2.813*** (0.032) 0.310*** (0.034) 3.43*** (0.038) 0.721*** (0.077)

Professional services

Education, health, social services Entertain, food services Other services

Public services

0.350*** (0.020) 0.050*** (0.009) 0.139*** (0.009) 0.052*** (0.012) 0.066*** (0.010) 0.082*** (0.021) 0.137*** (0.015) 0.147*** (0.011) 0.089*** (0.013) 0.164*** (0.011) 0.067*** (0.011) 0.205*** (0.014)

Segmented Assimilation

Eighth grade or less is the reference category. Retail is the reference category. U.S.-born whites are the reference group. *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 (two-tailed tests). Source: 2000 5 percent Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS), U.S. Bureau of the Census. Notes: Estimated standard errors in parentheses. is not applicable.

409

410
Women Self-employment (odds ratios) Low skilled 2 0.172*** (0.023) 0.483*** 0.591*** (0.028) (0.031) 0.276*** (0.045) 0.411*** (0.034) 0.493*** (0.041) 1.53*** (0.007) 169,595 0.080 244.5*** 0.484*** (0.072) 0.602*** (0.057) 0.566*** (0.057) 7.63*** (0.150) 0.836 (0.108) 0.900 (0.084) 0.994 (0.087) 1.49*** (0.007) 144,351 1.238 (0.152) 1.087 (0.116) 0.994 (0.110) 6.54*** (0.218) 0.104* (0.027) 0.025 (0.023) 0.012 (0.022) 0.503*** (0.067) 0.606*** 0.707*** 0.149*** (0.041) (0.043) (0.013) 0.051*** (0.012) 0.129*** (0.011) 0.349*** (0.067) 0.002 (0.059) 0.042*** (0.011) 0.265*** (0.056) 0.197*** (0.044) 0.078* (0.037) 0.325*** (0.076) 0.105 511.0*** 0.174*** (0.012) 0.354*** (0.043) 0.225*** (0.033) 0.259*** (0.032) 0.067 (0.060) 0.145 908.4*** 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 High skilled Low skilled High skilled Low skilled 2 0.431*** 0.467*** (0.042) (0.046) 0.391*** (0.055) 0.387*** (0.052) 0.389*** (0.064) 1.45*** (0.011) 76,115 0.554*** (0.103) 0.541*** (0.089) 0.483*** (0.085) 4.72*** (0.225) Log hourly earnings Self-employment (odds ratios) High skilled 1 2 0.424*** 0.553*** (0.060) (0.062) 0.772 (0.192) 1.121 (0.134) 0.965 (0.133) 2.11*** (0.010) 117,794 1.022 (0.243) 1.310 (0.179) 1.221 (0.155) 6.31 (0.319) 0.514*** (0.016) 0.356*** (0.015) 0.239*** (0.019) 1.90*** (0.004) 76,115 0.022 423.7*** 0.575*** (0.044) 0.461*** (0.038) 0.289*** (0.035) 2.66*** (0.003) 117,794 0.004 125.4***

TABLE 2. Continued

Men

Segmented Assimilation

Log hourly earnings

Low skilled

High skilled

Independent Variables

Armed forces

0.017 (0.019)

U.S.-born Mexicans

0.231*** (0.007)

0.160*** (0.007)

0.319*** (0.012)

Foreign-born Mexicans: Recent (010 yrs) 0.574*** (0.009) 0.345*** Intermediate (0.008) (1120 yrs) Long-term (21+ yrs) 0.267*** (0.010) Intercept 2.42*** (0.002) Unweighted N 169,595 0.036 R2 F-value 1599.4***

0.150*** (0.015) 0.063*** (0.013) 0.059*** (0.013) 0.694*** (0.037)

0.114 810.7***

0.736*** (0.034) 0.587*** (0.027) 0.560*** (0.029) 3.15*** (0.002) 144,351 0.014 497.2***

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Eighth grade or less is the reference category. Retail is the reference category. U.S.-born whites are the reference group. *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 (two-tailed tests). Source: 2000 5 percent Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS), U.S. Bureau of the Census. Notes: Estimated standard errors in parentheses. is not applicable.

Zulema Valdez

TABLE 3. Regression of Earnings by Nativity, Length of Residence in the United States, and Self-Employment among Low- and High-Skilled Mexicans, Aged 2564 in 2000 (Models 1, 2, and 3)
Women High skilled 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 Low skilled High skilled 3

Zulema Valdez

Men

Low skilled

Independent Variables 1

Age

Age (squared)

0.041*** (0.003) 0.000*** (0.000)

0.041*** (0.003) 0.000*** (0.000)

0.085*** (0.007) 0.001*** (0.000)

0.085*** (0.007) 0.001*** (0.000)

0.044*** (0.006) 0.000*** (0.000)

0.044*** (0.006) 0.000*** (0.000)

0.084*** (0.009) 0.001*** (0.000)

0.084*** (0.009) 0.001*** (0.000)

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Education Ninth through high school Some college through BA Graduate/ professional Speaks English well

Married

Citizen

0.109*** (0.009) 0.309*** (0.013) 0.271*** (0.045) 0.135*** (0.010) 0.273*** (0.008) 0.120*** (0.012)

0.108*** (0.009) 0.308*** (0.013) 0.267*** (0.045) 0.135*** (0.010) 0.273*** (0.008) 0.120*** (0.012)

0.028 (0.039) 0.274*** (0.039) 0.595*** (0.044) 0.243*** (0.034) 0.227*** (0.019) 0.056 (0.034)

0.027 (0.039) 0.273*** (0.039) 0.593*** (0.044) 0.243*** (0.034) 0.227*** (0.019) 0.055 (0.034)

0.106*** (0.017) 0.357*** (0.024) 0.262*** (0.076) 0.125*** (0.018) 0.094*** (0.014) 0.097*** (0.021)

0.106*** (0.017) 0.358*** (0.024) 0.263*** (0.076) 0.125*** (0.018) 0.093*** (0.014) 0.096*** (0.021)

0.098 (0.059) 0.370*** (0.059) 0.811*** (0.064) 0.245*** (0.049) 0.071*** (0.021) 0.034 (0.049)

0.108 (0.059) 0.379*** (0.059) 0.821*** (0.064) 0.262*** (0.049) 0.071*** (0.021) 0.028 (0.049)

Industry Agriculture

Mining

Utilities

Segmented Assimilation

0.243*** (0.022) 0.272*** (0.037) 0.311*** (0.048)

0.245*** (0.022) 0.275*** (0.037) 0.314*** (0.048)

0.132** (0.056) 0.376** (0.121) 0.346*** (0.099)

0.131** (0.056) 0.375** (0.121) 0.346*** (0.099)

0.292*** (0.045) 0.0075 (0.245) 0.221 (0.245)

0.291*** (0.045) 0.074 (0.245) 0.220 (0.245)

0.136 (0.139) 0.228 (0.291) 0.669*** (0.177)

0.150 (0.139) 0.230 (0.291) 0.673*** (0.177)

411

Eighth grade or less is the reference category. Retail is the reference category. U.S.-born Mexicans are the reference group. *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 (two-tailed tests). Estimated standard errors in parenthesis. Source: 2000 5 percent Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS), U.S. Bureau of the Census.

412 Women High skilled 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 Low skilled High skilled 3 0.057** (0.018) 0.107*** (0.018) 0.038 (0.023) 0.192*** (0.022) 0.225*** (0.053) 0.010 (0.034) 0.141*** (0.020) 0.106*** (0.026) 0.138*** (0.020) 0.072*** (0.022) 0.219*** (0.034) 0.236*** (0.042) 0.269*** (0.033) 0.148*** (0.040) 0.188*** (0.057) 0.190*** (0.047) 0.183*** (0.039) 0.042 (0.035) 0.033 (0.032) 0.024 (0.039) 0.028 (0.054) 0.121** (0.045) 0.236*** (0.042) 0.269*** (0.033) 0.148*** (0.040) 0.190*** (0.057) 0.191*** (0.047) 0.183*** (0.039) 0.043 (0.035) 0.033 (0.032) 0.024 (0.039) 0.028 (0.054) 0.120** (0.045) 0.254*** (0.072) 0.242*** (0.037) 0.025 (0.048) 0.262*** (0.062) 0.136 (0.093) 0.239*** (0.061) 0.166*** (0.043) 0.143*** (0.037) 0.053 (0.038) 0.118** (0.040) 0.334*** (0.069) 0.253*** (0.072) 0.243*** (0.037) 0.024 (0.048) 0.261*** (0.061) 0.136 (0.093) 0.240*** (0.061) 0.166*** (0.043) 0.143*** (0.037) 0.052 (0.038) 0.118** (0.040) 0.333*** (0.069) 0.306** (0.100) 0.447*** (0.051) 0.221*** (0.069) 0.342*** (0.100) 0.370*** (0.163) 0.316*** (0.043) 0.063 (0.048) 0.054 (0.034) 0.024 (0.050) 0.117 (0.083) 0.265*** (0.055) 0.312** (0.100) 0.454*** (0.051) 0.229*** (0.069) 0.343*** (0.099) 0.377*** (0.163) 0.322*** (0.043) 0.074 (0.048) 0.051 (0.034) 0.016 (0.050) .115 (0.083) 0.266*** (0.055)

TABLE 3. Continued

Men

Low skilled

Segmented Assimilation

Independent Variables 1

Construction

Manufacturing

Wholesale

Transportation

Information and communications Finance

Professional services

Education, health, social services Entertainment, food services Other services

Public services

0.059*** (0.018) 0.107*** (0.018) 0.038 (0.023) 0.193*** (0.022) 0.224*** (0.053) 0.009 (0.034) 0.141*** (0.020) 0.108*** (0.026) 0.135*** (0.020) 0.070*** (0.021) 0.458*** (0.033)

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Zulema Valdez

Eighth grade or less is the reference category. Retail is the reference category. U.S.-born Mexicans are the reference group. *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 (two-tailed tests). Estimated standard errors in parenthesis. Source: 2000 5 percent Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS), U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Men High skilled 3 0.235*** (0.073) 0.013 (0.102) 0.011 (0.102) 0.521 (0.283) 0.519 (0.283) 0.283 (0.292) 0.280 (0.292) 0.210*** (0.063) 0.247*** (0.051) 0.066 (0.042) 0.301*** (0.053) 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Low skilled High skilled

Women

Low skilled

Independent Variables 1

Zulema Valdez

Armed forces

0.474*** (0.073)

Length of residence Recent (10 years or less) Intermediate (1120 years) Long-term (21+ years) Self-employed 0.033** (0.016) 0.136*** (0.014) 0.144*** (0.015) 0.044** (0.022) 0.035 (0.027) 0.150*** (0.025) 0.179*** (0.043) 0.064 (0.034) 0.071** (0.032) 0.009 (0.026) 0.181*** (0.045) 0.080** (0.036) 0.061 (0.035) 0.016 (0.032) 0.031 (0.029) 0.045 (0.026) 0.080*** (0.025) 0.092*** (0.026) 0.036 (0.030) 0.045 (0.026) 0.074** (0.026) 0.113** (0.041) 0.188** (0.062) 0.213*** (0.049) 0.026 (0.041) 0.216*** 0.170*** (0.043) (0.045)

0.062*** (0.014)

0.018 (0.016) 0.130*** (0.014) 0.142*** (0.014) 0.101*** (0.014)

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Interactions Recent selfEmployed Intermediate selfemployed Long-term selfemployed Intercept 0.222*** (0.040) 0.068** (0.034) 0.022 (0.039) 8.42*** (0.068) 7.86*** (0.154) 0.168 62.7*** 0.168 56.5*** 0.014 (0.089) 0.092 (0.072) 0.056 (0.074) 7.86*** (0.154) 7.96*** (0.128) 0.070 55.6*** 9.10*** (.007) 20,038 0.002 35.4*** 0.114 189.4*** 10.46*** (0.010) 8,407 0.0002 1.68

8.42*** (0.068)

0.051 (0.066) 0.008 (0.063) 0.074 (0.073) 7.96*** (0.128) 0.070 50.1***

7.61*** (0.191) 0.132 43.2***

0.324 (0.167) 0.365** (0.127) 0.459*** (0.127) 7.60*** (0.191) 10.08*** (0.011) 7,700 0.003 23.3*** 0.134 39.6***

Unweighted N R2 F-value

9.74*** (0.004) 44,205 0.0004 18.5***

0.113 209.2***

Eighth grade or less is the reference category. Retail is the reference category. U.S.-born Mexicans are the reference group. *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 (two-tailed tests). Estimated standard errors in parenthesis. Source: 2000 5 percent Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS), U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Segmented Assimilation

413

Segmented Assimilation

Zulema Valdez

immigrants, compared to U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites. Yet, low-skilled, U.S.-born Mexican men report earnings that are 16 percent lower than U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites; thus, low-skilled, U.S.-born Mexican men earn less than low-skilled, foreign-born Mexican men. Furthermore, and regardless of nativity, the earnings of Mexican men continue to lag behind those of U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites. Similarly, low-skilled, foreign-born women outperform their U.S.-born counterparts. Moreover, after 10 years in the United States, their earnings are not distinctly different from those of U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites. Specically, as length of residence increases, the earnings of low-skilled, foreign-born women increase from 10 percent lower earnings among recent immigrants to earnings that are not markedly different from U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites. Yet, low-skilled U.S.-born Mexican women report earnings that are 5 percent lower than U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites. Findings suggest that labor market prospects and opportunities for wage-growth among low-skilled women are similar across ethnicity. Labor market conditions, however, are poorer for recent immigrants, whose earnings are lower than all other groups. As suggested in previous research, low-skilled recent immigrants are more likely to be undocumented and therefore easily exploitable (Kossoudji and Cobb-Clark 2002; Tienda and Singer 1995). On this point, the positive and signicant coefcient for citizenship among low-skilled workers is notable. Married status has a positive effect on mens earnings, as found in previous research, but a negative effect on womens earnings. Finally, although low- and high-skilled occupations are found in each industry category, it is worth mentioning that the earnings of low-skilled workers in professional services are negative, while those of high-skilled workers are positive. Overall, ndings indicate two divergent trends in the earnings of Mexicans. Among low-skilled workers, ndings indicate a decline in earnings by nativity. Specically, the earnings of U.S.-born Mexicans are lower than those of their foreign-born counterparts (and lag behind those of U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites). These ndings reveal a downward trend in the earnings of low-skilled Mexicans, in support of downward assimilation. In contrast, and among high-skilled workers, the earnings of foreign-born Mexicans increase as they reside in the U.S. longer, and the earnings of the U.S.-born are higher than those of their foreign-born counterparts. Findings suggest a general improvement in the earnings of high-skilled Mexicans over length of residence and nativity. Although these results continue to reect a negative and signicant disadvantage among high-skilled Mexicans relative to U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites, ndings reveal an upward trend in earnings among high-skilled foreign-born and U.S.-born Mexican men and women, characteristic of the Anglo-conformity hypothesis. Self-Employment Participation Table 2 presents the odds ratios for self-employment participation among foreign-born and U.S.-born Mexicans, against U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites. The odds ratio is interpreted as the odds of being self-employed versus not being self-employed, and is presented in terms of percent change. As in the previous analysis, separate results are generated by gender and skill level. Model 1 measures the effect of immigrants length of
414
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Zulema Valdez

Segmented Assimilation

residence in the United States and nativity alone; model 2 introduces inuential background characteristics (human capital, married status, citizenship, and industry). Model 1 of Table 2 shows how self-employment is affected by length of residence and nativity. In general, ndings reveal that self-employment participation is more prevalent among U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites and foreign-born Mexicans than U.S.-born Mexicans, regardless of gender and skill (although low-skilled foreign-born women are less likely to be self-employed than U.S.-born women). Furthermore, high-skilled foreign-born men and women are not noticeably different from U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites in their odds of being self-employed. With the addition of background characteristics, U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites and foreign-born Mexicans continue to outperform U.S.-born Mexicans (model 2 of Table 2). Education and married status contribute to the odds of being self-employed for men and women; citizenship does not. In general, foreign-born Mexicans are more likely to be self-employed than U.S.-born Mexicans, net of the controls and regardless of gender or skill (with the exception of low-skilled U.S.-born Mexican men, who are more likely to be self-employed than their foreign-born counterparts). These ndings are typical, as previous research has shown that for many ethnic groups, foreign-born selfemployment exceeds that of their U.S.-born counterparts (Light 1972; Waldinger et al. 1990). Although the prevalence of self-employment is greater among foreign-born Mexicans than U.S.-born Mexicans, after 10 years in the United States (from intermediate to long-term residence) the odds decline. For example, among women, the odds of being self-employed are 46 percent lower for low-skilled intermediate residents and 52 percent lower for long-term residents than U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites. Yet, the odds of being self-employed among U.S.-born Mexicans are lower still. Since foreign-born self-employment declines over time, and the prevalence of self-employment is lower among U.S.-born Mexicans than U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites (or foreign-born Mexicans), Mexican self-employment appears to follow a downward trend. These ndings reveal evidence of downward assimilation. However, the relationship between self-employment and socioeconomic assimilation among Mexicans has not been fully assessed. Although self-employment is associated with economic mobility among some ethnic groups (Nee and Sanders 1985; Portes and Bach 1985; Waldinger 1986; Sanders and Nee 1987; Waldinger et al. 1990; Portes and Zhou 1992; Logan, Alba, and McNulty 1994; and Sanders and Nee 1996), to conclude that the observed decline in Mexican self-employment constitutes downward assimilation requires evidence that Mexican self-employment facilitates Mexicans economic advancement. If such evidence is established, then the observed decline in selfemployment participation indicates downward assimilation. For this reason, I conduct a separate analysis that examines how self-employment participation affects Mexicans economic returns, as measured by personal earnings. The effect of self-employment participation on Mexicans personal earnings is presented in model 1 of Table 3. Background characteristics are included in model 2. Model 3 adds an interaction term that compares the self-employment earnings of foreign-born Mexicans, as length of residence increases, to those of U.S.-born Mexican workers. Since
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

415

Segmented Assimilation

Zulema Valdez

differences in the effect of these factors in models 2 and 3 are negligible, I discuss models 1 and 3 only. Self-Employment Earnings Model 1 of Table 3 displays the effect of self-employment participation alone on earnings. Notably, self-employment participation lowers the earnings of low-skilled men but does not alter the earnings of the highly-skilled, relative to U.S.-born workers; furthermore, there is a marked decrease in the earnings of self-employed women, regardless of skill. Model 3 of Table 3 includes inuential background characteristics as well as an interaction term that compares the self-employment earnings of recent, intermediate, and longterm immigrants against those of U.S.-born Mexican workers. Although married status increases the odds of being self-employed among men and women, it lowers the selfemployment earnings of women (as it did for the earnings of women workers). Moreover, ndings reveal that citizenship has a positive effect on the self-employment earnings of low-skilled men and women (as it did for the earnings of low-skilled workers), since naturalization confers greater equality with the U.S. born. Differences are noted by nativity, net of the controls, and across gender and skill (model 3 of Table 3). Specically, ndings reveal that the self-employment earnings of low-skilled, foreign-born men increase as they reside in the United States longer, but are lower than those of similarly skilled U.S.-born men. For example, self-employment lowers earnings by 23.4 percent (e.222+.044 1) for low-skilled recent immigrants, 10.6 percent (e.068+.044 1) for intermediate residents, and 6.4 percent (e.022+.044 1) for long-term residents, compared to a decrease in self-employment earnings of 4.3 percent (e.044 1) among the U.S. born (relative to those of U.S.-born workers). Among the highly skilled, although the self-employment earnings of foreign-born men decrease as they reside in the United States longer (from intermediate to long-term residence), their earnings are not markedly different from their U.S.-born, self-employed counterparts or U.S.-born workers. By and large, self-employment participation does not increase the earnings of Mexican men beyond the earnings of U.S.-born Mexican workers. Although the selfemployment earnings of low-skilled, foreign-born men increase as they reside in the United States longer, their earnings fall short of their U.S.-born counterparts and U.S.born workers. Among the highly skilled, the self-employment earnings of foreign- and U.S.-born Mexicans are not markedly different than their U.S.-born worker counterparts. Hence, the relationship between self-employment and earnings among men is not associated with a large increase in economic progress. For women, although the effect of self-employment participation alone decreases earnings (model 1of Table 3), the addition of inuential variables alters this effect. Overall, the self-employment earnings of U.S.-born Mexican women are lower than those of U.S.-born Mexican workers, regardless of skill (model 3 of Table 3). For example, the selfemployment earnings of low-skilled, U.S.-born women are 10.7 percent lower (e.113 1) and those of high-skilled, U.S.-born women are 26 percent lower (e.310 1) than the earnings of U.S.-born workers, net of the control variables. Yet, in general, the
416
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Zulema Valdez

Segmented Assimilation

self-employment earnings of foreign-born women increase as they reside in the United States longer and are greater than those of the U.S. born. Although the self-employment earnings of low-skilled, foreign-born women are higher than those of their U.S.-born counterparts, their earnings are not markedly different than U.S.-born workers; however, the self-employment earnings of high-skilled foreign-born women are higher than those of their U.S.-born counterparts and U.S.-born workers. Findings indicate that selfemployment participation increases the earnings of high-skilled, foreign-born women, relative to U.S.-born women. In sum, ndings suggest that self-employment participation lowers the earnings of low-skilled men (regardless of nativity) and U.S.-born women (regardless of skill) and does not affect the earnings of high-skilled men (regardless of nativity) or low-skilled, foreign-born women. Since foreign-born workers, on average, make less than U.S.-born workers, self-employment may provide a modest increase in the earnings of high-skilled, foreign-born men and low-skilled, foreign-born women (since their earnings are comparable to those of U.S.-born workers). Moreover, self-employment provides a signicant increase in the earnings of high-skilled, foreign-born women, who surpass the earnings of their U.S.-born self-employed and worker counterparts. Given these ndings, it is not surprising that the odds of being self-employed are generally higher among foreign-born Mexicans than U.S.-born Mexicans. Self-employment participation lowers the earnings of the U.S. born, regardless of gender or skill (with the exception of high-skilled, U.S.-born men, who report comparable earnings to those of workers); moreover, their odds of being self-employed are also lower. With the exception of high-skilled, foreign-born women, the self-employment earnings of foreign-born Mexicans are, at best, comparable to those of U.S.-born Mexican workers. Furthermore, the self-employment earnings of U.S.-born Mexicans are generally lower than those of U.S.-born Mexican workers. Hence, a decline in selfemployment participation does not appear to suggest downward assimilation, because self-employment earnings are not associated with considerable economic progress (and are sometimes associated with a decline in earnings). In general, self-employment participation among Mexicans appears to mitigate a lack of labor market opportunities rather than provide an avenue of economic mobility. CONCLUSION The Southwest boasts a long history of Mexican settlement. New immigrants arrive daily and settle in immigrant barrios characterized by high poverty, crime, and joblessness on the one hand, and strong ethnic communities with struggling but surviving ethnic economies on the other (Rodriguez 1993). At the same time, many generations of poor, U.S.born Mexicans live and work in these same barrios, and low- to middle-class, U.S.-born Mexicans reside in neighboring communities or suburbs (Valdez 1993). Even with this history of immigrant settlement, however, the current pattern of Mexican socioeconomic assimilation may be different from the past because of recent changes in immigration policy and economic restructuring.
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

417

Segmented Assimilation

Zulema Valdez

Immigration policy reform, such as the Hart-Cellar Act of 1965, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and the Immigration Act of 1990, has increased legal Mexican migration dramatically. Alongside legal immigration, undocumented Mexican migrants continue to cross the border. Recent studies suggest that immigration policy reforms have had a negative impact on Mexican immigrants, increasing discrimination and decreasing wages (Davila, Pagan, and Grau 1998; Phillips and Massey 1999). In addition, and like the rest of the United States, the Southwest experienced great economic changes during the 1970s. Economic restructuring took the form of a decline in mining, durable manufacturing, and the defense industry and a rise in nondurable goods (garment manufacturing, electronics) and the low-wage service industry (Perry and Watkins 1977; Muller and Espenshade 1986; Fernandez-Kelly and Sassen 1991; Gonzales 1993). Such changes in the regional economy have hit U.S.-born Mexicans particularly hard, spurring a wage gap between U.S.-born Mexicans and non-Hispanic whites that persists to this day (Moore and Pinderhughes 1993; Morales and Bonilla 1993; Ortiz 1996). Under these conditions, a fundamental question is whether the socioeconomic outcomes of the Mexican-origin population will improve or decline over time and generations. Segmented assimilation theory attempts to explain what determines into which segment of American society a particular group may assimilate (Zhou 1997:984). This theory posits that for some ethnic groups, individual and group disadvantages combine with an unfavorable context of reception, eliminating opportunities for economic progress. As a result, these ethnic groups will experience downward assimilation (Portes and Zhou 1993; Zhou 1997; Portes and Rumbaut 2001). For other ethnic groups, individual and group advantages may combine with a positive context of reception, which increases opportunities for economic progress over time in the United States (Portes and Rumbaut 2001:281). These ethnic groups will enjoy gradual upward mobility and integration into the non-Hispanic, white middle class. This article has examined the effects of segmented assimilation on the socioeconomic outcomes of foreign-born and U.S.-born Mexicans; specically, I explored whether and when divergent patterns of assimilation occur within an ethnic group. Generally, my ndings reveal two contradictory trends in the socioeconomic outcomes of Mexicans: a downward trend in the hourly earnings of low-skilled workers associated with downward assimilation, and a gradual and upward trend among high-skilled workers associated with Anglo-conformity (although parity with U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites is not reached). Furthermore, I nd some evidence of divergent trends in self-employment, as the self-employment earnings of high-skilled, U.S.-born men are similar to those of U.S.born workers, while the self-employment earnings of low-skilled, U.S.-born men are lower than those of U.S.-born workers. More generally, however, the self-employment earnings of U.S.-born Mexicans are not associated with economic mobility. At best, the self-employment earnings of highskilled, U.S.-born Mexican men are not distinctly different from those of their U.S.-born worker counterparts, while the self-employment earnings of low-skilled, U.S.-born Mexican men and women (the latter, regardless of skill) are signicantly lower than those of their worker counterparts. Interestingly, high-skilled, foreign-born Mexican
418
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Zulema Valdez

Segmented Assimilation

women outperform their U.S.-born, self-employed and worker counterpartsfor this group, self-employment is associated with higher earnings, as research has shown for Korean and Cuban men (Light and Bonacich 1988; Waldinger et al. 1990; Portes and Zhou 1992; Rath 2000; Lee 2002). In most cases, however, Mexican self-employment appears to be a strategy of survival rather than one of economic mobility (Light and Roach 1996). Portes and Rumbaut (2001:278) suggest that unlike the Cuban community, the Mexican community is weak because of precarious conditions of arrival and settlement. As a result, Mexican self-employment participation is negligible, even in ethnically concentrated areas (Portes and Rumbaut 2001:245; Raijman and Tienda 2000). Given that, on average, this group faces individual and group disadvantages, such as limited education, a lack of English prociency, and a negative context of reception, it is not surprising that self-employment is disproportionately low among this group and does not facilitate economic progress. Thus, although self-employment participation declines over time and generations, this downward trend does not necessarily indicate downward assimilation, because the earnings of the self-employed are not generally associated with positive economic returns. Rather than propelling Mexicans into a more favorable economic position, self-employment may prevent downward assimilation by providing an alternative to greater uncertainty in the labor market (e.g., joblessness associated with the underclass). Finally, this research underscores the persistent gap between the socioeconomic outcomes of Mexicans and U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites. In general, Mexicans earn less than U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites regardless of nativity, gender, and skill. Moreover, the odds of being self-employed drop dramatically among U.S.-born Mexicans, relative to U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites. In addition, although the prevalence of selfemployment is not markedly different between high-skilled, foreign-born Mexicans and U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites, Mexicans self-employment earnings rarely surpass those of their U.S.-born Mexican worker counterparts. As predicted by the downward assimilation hypothesis, individual and group disadvantages combine with an unfavorable context of reception to eliminate opportunities for economic progress among low-skilled foreign-born Mexicans and their descendants (Portes and Zhou 1993; Zhou 1997; Portes and Rumbaut 2001). This group constitutes the working poor today, but the possibility remains that its members may one day fall into the underclass. In contrast to the plight of low-skilled Mexicans, this research demonstrates that higher skills among foreign-born and U.S.-born Mexicans allow them to overcome partially the negative context of reception, which they face because of nativist policies, the demand for low-wage labor, citizenship status, and discrimination. Highskilled, foreign-born Mexicans and their descendants are making economic progress, and socioeconomic parity with U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites is within their reach (even as they may face additional barriers associated with minority middle-class status, e.g., discrimination in public places) (Feagin and Sikes 1994; Neckerman, Carter, and Lee 1999:945). Overall, this research demonstrates that intragroup differences rooted in skill-level affect the pattern of assimilation experienced by foreign-born and U.S.-born Mexicans in the Southwest. Ultimately, ndings challenge segmented assimilation theory
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

419

Segmented Assimilation

Zulema Valdez

to consider how skill-level affects distinct patterns of assimilation for groups that face a negative context of reception. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Sheldon Danziger and several anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and Andrew Yinger for editorial assistance. This article was funded with fellowship support provided by the Ford Foundation, Research and Training Program on Poverty and Public Policy at the University of Michigan. NOTES
1

Five states are considered Southwestern states: California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado (see Saenz and Davila 1992; Warren 1996). 2 Segmented assimilation theory includes a third hypothesis that does not characterize the Mexicanorigin population. The ethnic cohesion hypothesis (Portes and Zhou 1993) posits that the maintenance of the ethnic community provides an additional, non-assimilatory path of socioeconomic assimilation. This pattern is associated with entrepreneurial ethnic groups (Zhou 1997:979), such as Cubans and Koreans (Wilson and Portes 1980; Light and Bonacich 1988; Portes and Jensen 1992; Portes and Stepick 1993). Since Mexican self-employment is low, the assumptions of the ethnic cohesion hypothesis are not supported. That said, whether Mexican self-employment is associated with economic progress is assessed here. 3 In addition, recent immigrants may outperform their intermediate and long-term counterparts and U.S.-born Mexicans. Since the downward assimilation hypothesis posits a decline in socioeconomic outcomes over time, the logic here is that recent Mexican immigrants are less affected by the negative context of reception than those who have been in the United States longer. 4 The 2000 census allows for reporting more than one race. Therefore, Hispanics may identify not only as non-Hispanic white, other race, or Spanish write-in, but as one or more of these categories. If a respondent identied as one or more of these categories and also identied as Mexican in the Hispanic origin question, the respondent is captured in this sample. 5 In 1970, 1980, and 1990, the census asked respondents when they rst came to stay, which might refer to the rst or last migration to the United States or the cumulative number of years in the United States (Massey et al. 1987). In 2000, this question asks when the respondent came to live in the United States; this is more readily interpreted as the cumulative number of years residing in the United States.

REFERENCES
Alba, Richard D. 1990. Ethnic Identity: The Transformation of White America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Alba, Richard and Victor Nee. 2003. Remaking the Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. . 1997. Rethinking Assimilation Theory for a New Era of Immigration. International Migration Review 31:82675.

420

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Zulema Valdez

Segmented Assimilation

Allensworth, Elaine M. 1997. Earnings Mobility of First and 1.5 Generation Mexican-Origin Women and Men: A Comparison with U.S.-Born Mexican Americans and Non-Hispanic Whites. International Migration Review 31(2):386410. Archer, Melanie. 1991. Self-Employment and Occupational Structure in an Industrializing City: Detroit 1880. Social Science History 15:6795. Borjas, George. 1985. Assimilation, Changes in Cohort Quality, and the Earnings of Immigrants. Journal of Labor Economics 3(4):46389. . 1986. The Self-Employment Experience of Immigrants. The Journal of Human Resources 21(4):485506. . 1990. Friends or Strangers: The Impact of Immigrants on the American Economy. New York: Basic Books. Borjas, George and Marta Tienda. 1993. The Employment and Wages of Legalized Immigrants. International Migration Review 27(4):71247. Butcher, Kristin F. 1994. Black Immigrants to the United States: A Comparison with Native Blacks and Other Immigrants. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 47:26584. Camarillo, Albert M. and Frank Bonilla. 2001. Hispanics in a Multicultural Society: A New American Dilemma? Pp. 103134 in America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences, vol. 1, edited by Neil J. Smelser, Wiliam Julius Wilson, and Faith Mitchell. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Davila, Alberto, Jose A. Pagan, and Montserrat Viladrich Grau. 1998. The Impact of IRCA on the Job Opportunities and Earnings of Mexican-American and Hispanic-American Workers. International Migration Review 32(1):7995. Donato, Katherine, Jose Durand, and Douglas Massey. 1992. Stemming the Tide? Assessing the Deterrent Effects of the Immigration Reform and Control Act. Demography 29(2):13957. Duncan, Otis D. 1961. Socioeconomic Index for All Occupations. Pp. 10938 in Occupations and Social Status, edited by Albert John Reiss. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Enchautegui, Maria E. 1998. Low-Skilled Immigrants and the Changing American Labor Market. Population Development Review 24(4):81124. Feagin, Joe R. and Melvin P. Sikes. 1994. Living with Racism: The Black Middle-Class Experience. Boston, MA: Beacon. Fernandez-Kelly, M. Patricia and Saskia Sassen. 1991. A Collaborative Study of Hispanic Women in the Garment and Electronics Industries: Executive Summary. New York: New York University Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies. Fernandez-Kelly, M. Patricia and Richard Schaufer. 1994. Divided Fates: Immigrant Children in a Restructured U.S. Economy. International Migration Review 28(4):66289. Fix, Michael and Jeffrey S. Passel. 1994. Immigration and Immigrants: Setting the Record Straight. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved May 30, 2006 (http://www.urban.org/ url.cfm?ID=305184). Gans, Herbert J. 1992. Second-Generation Decline: Scenarios for the Economic and Ethnic Futures of the Post-1965 American Immigrants. Ethnic and Racial Studies 15(2):17392. Glazer, Nathan. 1993. Is Assimilation Dead? Annals of the Academy of Political & Social Science 530:12237. Glazer, Nathan and Daniel P. Moynihan. 1963. Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians, and Irish of New York City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gonzales, Phillip P. 1993. Historical Poverty, Restructuring Effects, and Integrative Ties: Mexican American Neighborhoods in a Peripheral Sunbelt Economy. Pp. 14972 in In the Barrios:

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

421

Segmented Assimilation

Zulema Valdez

Latinos and the Underclass Debate, edited by Joan Moore and Raquel Pinderhughes. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Gordon, Milton. 1964. Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins. New York: Oxford University Press. Guzman, Betsy. 2001. The Hispanic Population: Census 2000 Brief. U.S. Department of Commerce Economic and Statistics Administration. U.S. Census Bureau. Hakim, Catherine. 1988. Self-Employment in Britain: Recent Trends and Current Issues. Work, Employment and Society 2:42150. Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette. 1994. Gendered Transitions: Mexican Experiences of Immigration. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Kalmijn, Matthijs. 1996. The Socioeconomic Assimilation of Caribbean American Blacks. Social Forces 74(3):91130. Kasinitz, Philip, John H. Mollenkopf, and Mary C. Waters. 2004. Becoming New Yorkers: Ethnographies of the New Second Generation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Kossoudji, Sherrie A. and Deborah A. Cobb-Clark. 2002. Coming Out of the Shadows: Learning about Legal Status and Wages from the Legalized Population. Journal of Labor Economics 20:598628. Lee, Jennifer. 2002. Civility in the City: Blacks, Jews, and Koreans in Urban America. Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press. Lieberson, Stanley. 1963. Ethnic Patterns in American Cities. New York: Free Press. Light, Ivan H. 1972. Ethnic Enterprise in America: Business and Welfare among Chinese, Japanese and Blacks. Berkeley: University of California Press. Light, Ivan and Edna Bonacich. 1988. Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Koreans in Los Angeles. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Light, Ivan and Elizabeth Roach. 1996. Self-Employment: Mobility Ladder or Economic Lifeboat? Pp. 193214 in Ethnic Los Angeles, edited by Roger Waldinger and Mehdi Bozorgmehr. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Logan, John R, Richard D. Alba, and Thomas McNulty. 1994. Ethnic Economies in Metropolitan Regions: Miami and Beyond. Social Forces 72(3):691724. Massey, Douglas, Rafael Alarcon, Jorge Durand, and Humberto Gonzalez. 1987. Return to Aztlan: The Social Process of International Migration from Western Mexico. Berkeley: University of California Press. Model, Suzanne. 1991. Caribbean Immigrants: A Black Success Story? International Migration Review 25:24876. Moore, Joan and Raquel Pinderhughes, eds. 1993. In the Barrios: Latinos and the Underclass Debate. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Morales, Rebecca and Frank Bonilla, eds. 1993. Latinos in a Changing U.S. Economy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Muller, Thomas and Thomas J. Espenshade. 1986. The Fourth Wave. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. Myrdal, Gunnar. 1944. An American Dilemma; the Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. New York: Harper. Neckerman, Kathryn M., Prudence Carter, and Jennifer Lee. 1999. Segmented Assimilation and Minority Cultures of Mobility. Ethnic and Racial Studies 22(6):94565. Nee, Victor and Jimmy Sanders. 1985. The Road to Parity: Determinants of the Socioeconomic Achievements of Asian Americans. Ethnic and Racial Studies 8(1):7593.

422

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Zulema Valdez

Segmented Assimilation

Ortiz, Vilma. 1996. The Mexican-Origin Population: Permanent Working Class or Emerging Middle Class? Pp. 24778 in Ethnic Los Angeles, edited by Roger Waldinger and Mehdi Bozorgmehr. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Park, Robert E. 1950. Race and Culture. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Perry, David and Alfred Watkins. 1977. The Rise of the Sunbelt Cities. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Phillips, Julie A. and Douglas S. Massey. 1999. The New Labor Market: Immigrants and Wages after IRCA. Demography 36(2):23346. Portes, Alejandro and Richard Bach. 1985. Latin Journey: Cuban and Mexican Immigrants in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press. Portes, Alejandro and Leif Jensen. 1992. Disproving the Enclave Hypothesis. American Sociological Review 54:92949. Portes, Alejandro and Ruben G. Rumbaut. 1990. Immigrant America: A Portrait. Berkeley: University of California Press. . 2001. Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Portes, Alejandro and Alex Stepick. 1993. City on the Edge: The Transformation of Miami. Berkeley: University of California Press. Portes, Alejandro and Min Zhou. 1992. Gaining the Upper Hand: Economic Mobility among Domestic Minorities. Ethnic and Racial Studies 15:491522. . 1993. The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530:7497. Raijman, Rebecca and Marta Tienda. 2000. Immigrants Pathways to Business Ownership: A Comparative Ethnic Perspective. International Migration Review 34:682706. Rath, Jan. 2000. Immigrant Business: The Economic, Political and Social Environment. New York: St. Martins Press. Rodriguez, Nestor P. 1993. Economic Restructuring and Latino Growth in Houston. Pp 10128 in In the Barrios: Latinos and the Underclass Debate, edited by Joan Moore and Raquel Pinderhughes. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Ruggles, Steven, Matthew Sobek, Trent Alexander, Catherine A. Fitch, Ronald Goeken, Patricia Kelly Hall, Miriam King, and Chad Ronnander. 2003. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 3.0. Minneapolis: Historical Census Projects. University of Minnesota. http:// www.ipums.org. Saenz, Rogelio and Alberto Davila. 1992. Chicano Return Migration to the Southwest: An Integrated Human Capital Approach. International Migration Review 26(4):124866. Sanders, Jimy and Victor Nee. 1987. Limits of Ethnic Solidarity in the Enclave Economy. American Sociological Review 52:74573. . 1996. Social Capital, Human Capital, and Immigrant Self-Employment: The Family as Social Capital and the Value of Human Capital. American Sociological Review 61:23149. Schoeni, Robert F. 1997. New Evidence on the Economic Progress of Foreign-Born Men in the 1970s and 1980s. The Journal of Human Resources 32(4):683740. . 1998. Labor Market Outcomes of Immigrant Women in the United States: 1970 to 1990. International Migration Review 32(1):5777. Smith, James P. 2003. Assimilation across the Latino Generations. American Economic Review 93(2):3159. Tienda, Marta and Audrey Singer. 1995. Wage Mobility of Undocumented Workers in the United States. International Migration Review 29:11238.

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

423

Segmented Assimilation

Zulema Valdez

Tienda, Marta and Franklin D. Wilson. 1992. Migration and the Earnings of Hispanic Men. American Sociological Review 57(5):66178. Valdez, Avelardo. 1993. Persistent Poverty, Crime, and Drugs: U.S.-Mexican Border Region. Pp. 17394 in In the Barrios: Latinos and the Underclass Debate, edited by Joan Moore and Raquel Pinderhughes. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Waldinger, Roger. 1986. Immigrant Enterprise: A Critique and Reformulation. Theory and Society 15:24985. Waldinger, Roger, Howard Aldrich, Robin Ward, and Associates. 1990. Ethnic Entrepreneurs: Immigrant Business in Industrial Societies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Waldinger, Roger D. and Cynthia Feliciano. 2004. Will the New Second Generation Experience Downward Assimilation? Segmented Assimilation Re-Assessed. Ethnic and Racial Studies 27:376402. Warner, William and L. Srole. 1945. The Social Systems of American Ethnic Groups. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Warren, John Robert 1996. Educational Inequality among Non-Hispanic White and MexicanOrigin Adolescents in the American Southwest: 1990. Sociology of Education 69(2):14258. Waters, Mary C. 1990. Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wilson, Kenneth L. and W. Allen Martin. 1982. Ethnic Enclaves: A Comparison of the Cuban and Black Economies in Miami. American Journal of Sociology 88(1):13560. Wilson, Kenneth L. and Alejandro Portes. 1980. Immigrant Enclaves: An Analysis of the Labor Market Experiences of Cubans in Miami. American Journal of Sociology 86(2):295316. Xu, Wu and Ann Lefer. 1992. Gender and Race Effects on Occupational Prestige, Segregation, and Earnings. Gender and Society 6(3):37692. Zhou, Min. 1997. Segmented Assimilation: Issues, Controversies, and Recent Research on the New Second Generation. International Migration Review 31:9751019. . 2001. Progress, Decline, Stagnation? The New Second Generation Comes of Age. Pp. 272 307 in Strangers at the Gates: New Immigrants in Urban America, edited by Roger Waldinger. Berkeley: University of California Press.

424

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen