lllllllllllIIHIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIHIInullluuunmnum
31293 01706 9919

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

MEXICAN TOWNS IN CALIFORNIA:
A QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE EXAMINATION
OF COMMUNITY ETHNIC TRANSFORMATION

AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
presented by

Elaine Allensworth

has been accepted towards fulfillment
ol’the requirements for

Ph.D- degree in Sociology

WJM

I . .
U Major protessor

Date November 7, 1997

' ' - 1
MSU M an Aliimmuw- Arriun/lt'quu/ ()p/mrtmmv Insulunnn O 1277

W“,

. ‘—‘ \

 

LIBRARY
Michlgan State
UnIverslty

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box
to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1193 cz/CIRCIDaleDue.p65-p.14

 

 

A QL'ASH

MEXICAN TOWNS IN CALIFORNIA:
A QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE EXAMINATION OF COMMUNITY ETHNIC
TRANSFORMATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
By

Elaine Marie Allensworth

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Sociology
1997

 

 

 

 

A QL‘A‘CII

The
1* numenca
becoming [h
percentages
compared to
are POSCd in
changing an
3’ WI is co
COncelnralloi

R688;
Dependency
disseIIaIIOn a
NCO‘Clflsssic
Theo’l‘isl inu
Study QOme f
the County B
and 1990, am

cWetter] [hIc

ABSTRACT

 

MEXICAN TOWNS IN CALIFORNIA:
A QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE EXAMINATION OF COMMUNITY ETHNIC
TRANSFORMATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
By

Elaine Marie Allensworth

The ethnic composition of rural California is rapidly changing. Latinos have lived
as numerical minorities within barrios of communities for decades, but they are now
becoming the majority population in many places. At the same time, places with higher
percentages of Latino residents are becoming increasingly economically disadvantaged
compared to places with lower percentages of Latinos. Therefore, the following questions
are posed in this dissertation: 1) Why is the ethnic composition of California communities
Changing, and what are the factors leading to the increasing concentration of Latinos? and
2) Why is community socio-economic well-being so strongly related to Latino
concentration, and what are the factors leading to unequal wealth and development?

Research on Latino immigration to rural areas has generally taken either a
Dependency Theory /World Systems perspective, or a rational-economic approach. In this
dissertation an integrated theoretical model is developed based on hypotheses derived from
Neo-Classsical economic theories (e. g., Social Capital, Human Capital, and Central Place
Theories) interpreted within a Dependency Theory framework. Quantitative data for this
study come from the 1980 and 1990 US. Census of Populationand Housing STF3 files,
the County Business Patterns Data of the Standard Statistical Establishment List for 1980
and 1990, and the US. Census of Agriculture for 1982 and 1987. Qualitative data were

collected through interviews, focus groups, and observation of communities.

 

1 ii
of foreign-
However.
population
Agricultun
for explain
Latinos etl
better explz
social and l
and the gm
numbers of

alld Wage g

I find that growth and loss of U.S.-born population is more important than growth
of foreign—bom population for explaining the relative differences in ethnic transformation.
However, foreign—born population growth influenced the growth patterns of U.S.-bom
population by affecting economic and social conditions within and between communities.
Agricultural restructuring, social networks, and housing availability were most important
for explaining foreign-bom and U.S.—born Latino population growth. Among white non-
Latinos, ethnic conflict, perceptions of community deterioration, and housing availability
better explain migration decisions. Community economic development was affected by the
social and human capital held by community residents, regional employment opportunities,
and the growth of non-Latino and foreign-bom population. The effect of changing
numbers of foreign-bom population on community development depended on regional job

and wage growth. Policy and research implications are discussed.

 

 

l a
graduate e
I a

in the colc
provided r
Others in it
[his Pf0iec
M)

Iain very [
afld know]:
f0r all of he
researth. I
”Search an:
MW in $1
I we

little and 335
that I met in
Fina

Comfort, frie

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am sincerely grateful to the following peOple who have guided me through my

 

graduate education, and supported me in the completion of this project.

I am most grateful to my committee chairperson, Refugio Rochi’n, for involving me
in the colonias project. He has motivated me to grow as a researcher-scholar. He has
provided many opportunities for me to expand my work and to become involved with
others in the field. I am very appreciative of his continual support and encouragement in
this project, in my future work, and in my career.

My committee members have been instrumental in my deveIOpment as a sociologist.

 

I am very thankful to my academic advisor, Stan Kaplowitz, for the kindness, friendship,
and knowledge he has shared with me over many years. I am grateful to Janet Bokemeier
for all of her advice, and for the opportunities she provided for me to first get involved in
research. I am thankful to Rita Gallin for challenging me to continually critique my
research and for expanding my world view. And I thank Ruben Rumbaut for piquing my
interest in studies of immigration, and encouraging my research on the topic.

I would also like to thank the residents of the communities that I studied for their
time and assistance in this project. I am grateful for the warmth and Openness of the people
that I met in central California.

Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Steven Meyers, for all of his guidance,

comfort, friendship, and love. He is a constant source of support, inspiration, and joy,

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................. ix
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1
Mexican Towns ................................................................................... 2
Research Issues and Questions of Study ....................................................... 4
Dissertation Plan and Approach ................................................................. 7
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................ 11
Review of the Problem .......................................................................... 11
Changing Demographics in Rural California .............................................. 11
Ethnicity and Community Well-Being ...................................................... 14
Theoretical Overview ............................................................................ 16
Structural Layout of the Theoretical Overview ............................................ 20
World-Systems and Dependency Theories ................................................. 22
Agricultural and Industrial Restructuring ................................................... 23
Ethnic Subordination / Labor Market Segmentation ...................................... 32
Internal Core and Periphery .................................................................. 37
Cost of Living Effects ........................................................................ 40
Human Capital Theory ....................................................................... 41
Social Capital Theory ......................................................................... 42
Central Place Theory .......................................................................... 48
Demographic Effects .......................................................................... 50
Final Models ................................................................................... 5 2
CHAPTER 3. METHODS ........................................................................ 56
Quantitative Analysis ............................................................................ 5 6
Data ............................................................................................. 56
Variables ....................................................................................... 5 7
Qualitative Analysis .............................................................................. 64
Data Analysis .................................................................................. 66
Places of Study ................................................................................ 66

 

 

 

 

CHAPTE
Ednnt'
Foreigr

Gron
Gron
Grow
Commu
S's-innit

ClHPTEl
Patterns
Geogi
ECOIIC
50cm}
Politic
Ethnic I
Non-l
l'.S.-I
Foreig
Ethnicity
POpuk
Ethnic
Human
Social

CHAPTER
Slimmm
Ethnic
NONI;
COmml
lntegm
The Futur
RlSlng ]
Imilllcalic
Policy [m]
ECOnOn

CHAPTER 4. QUANTITATIVE RESULTS ................................................. 74
Ethnic Transformation ......................................................................... 75
Foreign-Bom, Latino and Non-Latino Population Growth ............................... 76

Growth in Foreign-Bom Population ...................................................... 77
Growth in Latino Population ............................................................... 79
Growth in N on-Latino Population ......................................................... 80
Community Development ..................................................................... 82
Summary Model of Quantitative Results .................................................... 85
CHAPTER 5. QUALITATIVE RESULTS ................................................... 87
Patterns in Ethnicity and Economics ......................................................... 88
Geographic Patterns in the Ethnic and Economic Composition of Places ............ 88
Economic Patterns in Mexican Towns .................................................... 91
Social Patterns: Divisions Among Community Residents ............................. 93
Political Patterns ............................................................................. 99
Ethnic Transformation ........................................................................ 104
Non—Latino White Population Growth and Loss ....................................... 104
U.S.—Bom Latino Population Growth: Comparison to Anglos ...................... 11 l
Foreign—Born Population Growth ........................................................ 117
Ethnicity and Economic Development ...................................................... 1 l9
POpulation Growth ......................................................................... 119
Ethnic Transformation ..................................................................... 121
Human Capital .............................................................................. 123
Social Capital ................................................................................ 126
CHAPTER 6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................... 128
Summary onypotheses ........... 128
Ethnic Transformation ..................................................................... 128
Non-Latino, Latino, and Foreign-born Population Growth ........................... 129
Community Economic DeveIOpment ..................................................... 136
Integrated Model of Ethnic Transformation and Economic Development ............ 140
The Future of Rural Communities in California ........................................... 149
Rising Latino Power: Implications for the Economic Development of Colonias. .. 151
Implications for Other Regions .............................................................. 160
Policy Implications ............................................................................ 161
Economic Development in Mexican Towns ............................................. 162
Low-Income Housing Development ..................................................... 166
Special Programs ........................................................................... 167
Immigration Policies ....................................................................... 169
Policy Implications for Other Areas ...................................................... 170
Future Research ............................................................................... 172
LIST OF REFERENCES ....................................................................... 175
APPENDICES ..................................................................................... 187

Vi

 

 

11:27.7: .
‘l " "—

 

"' : Cf
123k. \

able: Br-

.__
J
1’,
-1.
.4

Table; H}-

lablef Op:

Table 6.. II

Table” De;
Tables, Des
Table 9_ D
Table In. Re
Table 11~ Re!
Table 12. Reg
Table ]3_ Re
Table 14' Re
Table 15. Co:
Table to. cop
Table 17' Co:
Table 18. Cu
Table 19' D
Table 20, Pied

Table 2]. Fred

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Community Economic Variables by Percent Latino ........................................................ 15

Table 2. Bivariate Regression Equations: Community Economic Indicators by Ethnic Composition 16

Table 3. Hypotheses Predicting Ethnic Transformation... ............................................................. 54
Table 4. Hypothesized Predictors of Community Wealth and Development ....................................... 55
Table 5. Operational Definitions of Variables ............................................................................. 63
Table 6. Description of Cutler and Orosi ................................................................................... 70
Table 7. Description of Exeter ................................................................................................ 71
Table 8. Description of Orange Cove ....................................................................................... 72
Table 9. Description of Woodlake ............................................................................................ 73
Table 10. Regression Models of 1990 Ethnic Composition .................................. . ....................... 76
Table 11. Regression Models of Foreign Born Population Growth (1980-1990) ............................... 79
Table 12. Regression Models of Latino POpulation Growth (1980-1990) ........................................ 80
Table 13. Regression Models of NoneLatino Population Growth (1980-1990) .................................. 82
Table 14. Regression Models of Community Development (1980-1990) ......................................... 84
Table 15. Correlations Among Percentage Growth Variables ....................................................... 191
Table 16. Correlations Among 1980 and 1990 Community Ethnicity Variables .............................. 191
Table 1?. Correlations of Foreign-Born Population Growth With Community Ethnicity .................. 192
Table 18. Correlations Among County Agricultural and Employment Variables .............................. 193
Table 19. Descriptive Statistics ................. 194
Table 20. Prediction of Foreign-Born Population Controlling for Non-Latino, Non-Whites ............... 202
Table 21. Prediction of Latino Population Growth Controlling for Non-Latino Non-Whites .............. 203

vii

 

 

Table 22.
Table 33.1
Table 24.1
Table 35.
Tablclo F
Table 2',
Table 28 P
Table 29. in

Table 30. P

 

 

 

 

Table 22. Prediction of Non-Latino Population, Controlling for Non-Latino Non-Whites ................. 204

 

 

 

 

 

Table 23. Prediction of Ethnic Transformation Controlling for Non-Latino, Non-Whites ................... 204
Table 24. Prediction of Community Development Controlling for Non-Latino, Non-Whites .............. 205
Table 25. Prediction of Growth in Per Capita Income 206
Table 26. Prediction of Growth in Poverty 207
Table 27. Prediction of Growth in I' ,' J 208
Table 28. Prediction of Growth in Wealth 209
Table 29. Prediction of Growth in the Percentage of High School Graduates 210

211

 

Table 30. Prediction of the Growth in the Percentage of College Graduates

viii

 

 

Figure] I
Figure 2

Figure 3. I
TIgureq1 E
EMS. H
Figures, H
Figure] H
Fll’ure 8. H
Flllure9, H:
Flture 10, t
Figure 11. t
Figure 12. H
Fltire 13. H
Flgme I4, H
Figure 15'“)
Fltire 16, H;
Fititre 17. ”I
Figure 18, H3
rig”, 19. H)
FigureZO‘ Hy

Flgllre 2]

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Non-Latino and Overall Population Growth in 126 Rural Places (1980-1990) ..................... 13
Figure 2. Overview of Hypotheses ........................................................................................... 19
Figure 3. Hypothesis 1.1 ....................................................................................................... 26
Figure 4. Hypothesis 1.2 ....................................................................................................... 26
Figure 5. Hypothesis 2.1 ....................................................................................................... 29
Figure 6. Hypothesis 2.2 ....................................................................................................... 30
Figure 7. Hypothesis 1.3 ....................................................................................................... 31
Figure 8. Hypothesis 2.3 ....................................................................................................... 35
Figure 9. Hypothesis 2.4 ....................................................................................................... 36
Figure 10. Hypothesis 2.5 ..................................................................................................... 37
Figure 11. Hypothesis 2.6 ..................................................................................................... 39
Figure 12. Hypothesis 1.4 ..................................................................................................... 39
Figure 13. Hypothesis 1.5 ..................................................................................................... 41
Figure 14. Hypothesis 2.7 ..................................................................................................... 42
Figure 15. Hypothesis 1.6 ...................................................................................................... 44
Figure 16. Hypothesis 2.8 ..................................................................................................... 46
Figure 17. Hypothesis 1.7 ..................................................................................................... 48
Figure 18. Hypothesis 1.8 ..................................................................................................... 49
Figure 19. Hypothesis 2.9 ..................................................................................................... 50
Figure 20. Hypothesis 1.9 ..................................................................................................... 51

52

Figure 21.

Hypothesis 2.10 ....................................................................................................

ix

 

‘Ul’

 

Figure 33.

Figure 23

P R
I‘I.
r-tuC
s.
.-
F'T‘I';
a.L' \ ‘
.
7‘ .
‘\.
htfnr’; u
“‘ " u,
.

Figure 22. Model for Prediction of Changing Ethnic Composition ................................................ 53

Figure 23. Map of Communities ............................................................................................. 67
Figure 24. Empirical Model ................................................................................................... 86
Figure 25. Latino Education Levels by Percentage of Residents who are Foreign-Bom ...................... 112
Figure 26. Cyclical Model of Ethnic Transformation .................................................................. 136
Figure 27. Integrated Model of Latino Settlement ...................................................................... 144
Figure 28. Integrated Model of the Development of Internal Core-Periphery Relationships ................ 146
Figure 29. Integrated Model of Community Economic Development ............................................. 148

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C
continuin
Most of t
populauo
and Cenu

In
“lines. 1
lune/rm
almost Cor
mlnorifles

Places (R0
been allrib
University
lean Oneh
Clustercd i,

A1 I
in mm] Con
Latinos in c
and educm

Tllra] 1&1an

l The 1ng u}

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Califomia’s population, which increased by some 6 million peOple in the 19805, is
continuing to grow by a net amount of about 600,000 per year, or 1644 every 24 hours.
Most of this growth is in metropolitan areas, but there has been a large spill-over of
population to rural communities. Many of the new residents are immigrants from Mexico
and Central America (SCR 43 Task Force 1989; Rochi’n and Castillo 1995).

In 1950, rural communities in California were largely pOpulated by non-Hispanic
Whites.1 But beginning in the 19703, and accelerating during the 19805 and 19903, the
White/Latino proportions changed in most rural places, so that some communities became
almost completely composed of Latino residents. While Latinos have long been numerical
minorities within barrios of communities, they are now becoming the majority in many
places (Rochin and Lopez 1995). Most of the changing ethnicity Of rural California has
been attributed to the increasing numbers of immigrant agricultural workers. The
University of California Task Force on Latinos (SCR 43 Task Force 1989) noted that at
least one-half million Latinos in rural areas were immigrant settlers and that most were
clustered in some 100 communities near their jobs in agriculture.

At the same time, socio-economic indicators reveal disturbing underclass conditions
in rural communities with high proportions of Latino residents. As the proportion of
Latinos in communities rises, so do poverty rates and unemployment, while median income
and education levels decline (Castillo 1991; Allensworth and Rochi’n 1995). Furthermore,
rural Latino enclaves often lack essential housing, and health and social services (SCR 43

l The terms “Hispanic” and “Latino” are used interchangeably in this dissertation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ink Force 19
legal and mod
TEN
can:
Emnmmm
MMummi
nunflmd
November 19‘.
nhkudfld
surrounding it
HER
are occurring.
UTMmLu
Ammaut
demographic 2
[0 truth in L
among rural p
311d Central A

residents of C

2
Task Force 1989). They are also often without local businesses that cover needs such as
legal and medical services, pharmaceuticals, and recreational activities (Rochin and Lopez
1995).

Californians have noted these changing conditions, including the impoverishment
of communities in which Latinos are the majority population. They have reacted with fears
that Mexican immigrants are “taking over” their communities and draining the resources of
state and local governments. Such fears led to the passage of Proposition 187 in
November 1995, which denied education and health benefits to unauthorized immigrants
and their children. This, in turn, heightened conflicts within the state about issues
surrounding the growing foreign-born population.

This focus on immigration, however, obscures the impacts of other processes that
are occurring, such as movement of the non-Latino population, the substantial growth in
U.S.-born Latino population, and the growing economic polarization between people and
places that is occurring throughout the country. It cannot be assumed that all of the
demographic and economic changes that are occurring in rural California can be attributed
to growth in Latino immigration. In fact, non-Latino population has shifted substantially
among rural places over the last several decades. However, it is immigration from Mexico
and Central America which has captured the attention of media, politicians, and established

residents of California.

Mexican Towns

I understand that 30 - 40 years ago (that city) was a really nice town -- mostly
Anglo, with nice homes. Then it got into trouble. They lost their police
department. It’s not nice anymore. There are a lot of crimes.

1 always get a kick out of when I can first see Bear Mountain. I know
(my City) is right below that. It ’s a beautiful place.

The place described above is a small town located at the base of the mountains of

King’s Canyon National Park, surrounded by orange and peach groves, in the heart 0f the

 

 

 

 

 

San Joaquin
on agriculun
Asians. it's
This is it
In all ho.

People a
qfa'eati I

They it

The smells c
radios. the n
Spanish. Or
other comm

Muel
Most of the l
commUm-[y t
reSernhles sn
lhtn a Germ,

Over

llahsfonmm

3
San Joaquin Valley. The entire economy of the city, and of the surrounding area, depends
on agriculture. Most of the population is Hispanic, but there are a number of Anglos and
Asians. It’s a very pleasant, quiet small town. However, it has a reputation:
This is the second poorest city in the State of California.
In all honesty, I wouldn ’t live in here. It’s changed over the years.

People ask my ‘why do you want to work out there -- in Murdersville?’ Lots
of dead bodies are found here... ‘Aren ’t you afraid you 're going to be shot?’

They’ve got their own little mafia over in (that city).

That’s a Mexican Town.

It’s easy to transport yourself to Mexico walking around the city described above.
The smells of tortillas and tamales as you pass local restaurants, the music blasting from car
radios, the men with mustaches, pointed-toe boots and straw hats, the voices speaking in
Spanish. Once you have visited it, it is not surprising to find that people call it, and many
other communities in rural California, “Mexican towns.”

Much about the city has a Mexican feel. Signs are in Spanish as well as English.
Most of the population is of Mexican descent. However, while many aspects of the
community may be reminiscent of Mexico, it does not resemble towns in Mexico. It
resembles small communities throughout the United States, with a Mexican flavor rather
than a German or Scandinavian or other such feel.

Over the past 30 years, this town has gone through a dramatic ethnic

transformation, from being mostly non—Hispanic white in the 19605 to being almost

.L

 

 

 

completely l
throughout (
States. altho
1996; Gouve
themselves. 1
understandin
concentratior
distress. Pla
differentiate

It is 1
simple result
simultaneous
industrial res
States. It als

economjc Ira

OCC“Wing in I
quality 0flifc
msPOnatior
between the"
greater mobil
as ‘lransnatic
or regions in
in tents of at

2\

Specific "Unit

4

completely Latino in 1990.2 Similar demographic shifts are occurring in small towns
throughout California. They are also occurring in small towns throughout the United
States, although to a lesser extent than in the Southwest (e. g., see Amato 1996; Benson
1996; Gouveia and Stull 1996). While these demographic trends may be interesting in
themselves, they are accompanied by disturbing economic trends that call for immediate
understanding. Places that are experiencing the most dramatic growth in Latino
concentration also are experiencing dramatic growth in poverty and community economic
distress. Places in rural California are becoming increasingly economically heterogeneous,
differentiated by both ethnicity and economic status.

It is tempting to view the demographic and economic changes that are occurring as a
simple result of increasing immigration. However, such a perspective ignores other
simultaneously occurring processes, such as non-Hispanic white migration patterns,
industrial restructuring, and increasing economic polarization across all places in the United
States. It also must be asked why such places have experienced dramatic ethnic and

economic transformations, while neighboring rural places have not.

Research Issues and Questions of Study
This study attempts to put the trends in ethnic and economic transformation that are
occurring in the places described above in the context of global trends that are affecting the
quality of life in places throughout the United States. Advances in communication and
transportation are increasing the interdependence among places, while blurring borders
between them. The concept of “community” is increasingly difficult to define. There is a
greater mobility and migration of people. More and more places seem to be aptly described
as “transnational communities,” or places that are socially and economically tied to towns
or regions in other countries.3 Immigration to the United States is at its highest point ever

in terms of absolute numbers, and is increasingly coming from Latin America and Asia,

 

 

2 Specific numbers are not given to preserve the anonymity of the place.

 

 

 

rather than t
throughout t
resuucturing
of poverty or
and the size
lher
tease study:
areas." How
affecting tho
industrial res
the factors le
0f places tier
the eeonorm't
Calif
“all0nal lren.
OfPOVCITy ar
lS becOmmg
lROChfn and
on an CVeHn
Task Force 1
3“dress these
ll happened. .
communities
of co
MM. The
not (”list [0 ll.

3\

See PM (.19

 

5
rather than traditional European sending countries. Ethnic composition is changing
throughout the country. Furthermore, we are going through a period of economic
restructuring, resulting in greater economic polarization of both people and places. Pockets
of poverty and of extreme wealth are emerging together, reducing regional homogeneity
and the size of the middle class.

Therefore, this project begins to answer the following questions using California as
a case study: What processes are driving immigration and minority concentration in rural
areas? How are places reacting to these changes, and how is the changing ethnicity
affecting those places where Latinos are settling? In what ways are agricultural and
industrial restructuring affecting the socio-economic well-being of rural places? What are
the factors leading to unequal wealth and development? How are the economic conditions
of places tied together, and what are the implications of these social and economic ties for
the economic viability of particular places?

California is the ideal place for study because it is in the forefront of many of these
national trends. Immigration is at its highest in California (Rumbaut 1996), as are extremes
of poverty and wealth (Reed, Glenn Haber and Mameesh 1996). The minority population
is becoming the majority in many places, shifting the status relationships in these areas
(Rochin and Lopez 1995). California leads the country in agricultural restructruing, relying
on an ever-increasing supply of farm laborers and labor contractors (Palerm 1991; SCR 43
Task Force 1987). If rural places in other parts of the country are to deve10p policies to
address these dynamics, they should understand what has happened in California and how
it happened. Without attempting to understand how these processes have interacted in real
communities, policies will continue to be reactionary, and often inappropriate.

Of course, California also differs from other parts of the United States in many
respects. There is a historical legacy of migration between California and Mexico that does

not exist to the same degree in most other parts of the COUHU'Y- California was, at one time,

 

h

3 See Portes (1996) for a description of communities that span borders.

 

 

part of Meir
given contrt
industries in
mama
and Alror 19
differendy i
differences 1
Therefore. tl

study:

it “ht is th
the facto
Ethnic tr:
3l Why is cc
What are

leading It

The f
PllIIIary latte
“Mexican tor
Compared to
relative impel
qUestjon ads:
POPUlation_ l
[3th effect 0
Latino Whites

6

part of Mexico. Environmentally, California is ideally suited for large-scale agriculture,
given controlled irrigation. POpulation growth, and the success of many non-agricultural
industries in California, have allowed landowners and others to obtain large amounts of
capital in shorter periods of time, allowing for the purchase of large farms (e. g., Gilbert
and Akor 1988). The trends under study will no doubt manifest themselves somewhat
differently in other parts of the country. However, we cannot predict how or why these
differences might occur, unless we understand what has and is happening in California.
Therefore, the following specific questions are posed as the organizing framework for this

study:

1) Why is the ethnic composition of rural California communities changing, and what are
the factors leading to uneven changes? That is, what are the factors leading to uneven
ethnic transformation?

2) Why is community socio-economic well-being so strongly associated with ethnicity, and
what are the factors leading to unequal development? That is, what are the factors

leading to uneven community economic development?

The first question is raised to address the common belief that immigration is the
primary factor involved in the ethnic transformation of places, including the deve10pment of
“Mexican towns.” It is posed to clarify the impact of immigration on ethnic transformation,
compared to shifts in non-Latino and U.S.—born Latino population. Beyond examining the
relative impact of each of these groups on changing community ethnic composition, the
question arises as to what factors are influencing growth and loss of each type of
population. For example, do people move to places where jobs and wages are growing?

Is the effect of employment variables more salient for foreign-born pOpulation? Are non-
Latino whites moving away from places experiencing immigration because of fears and

prejudice or ethnic conflict? Are immigrants moving to places that already have large

 

 

 

 

immigrant 1
populations
Many more
general. eth
impact of n:
ethnic com;
him Latino

The
economic w
foreign-hon
and loss of r
0f the lmpac
Contettt of or
such as reg“
development

meOfCllml St

The f
Studi- Thefi
ethnic tTitttsfc
conditions it
Second Part 0
theoreticaj fr;
Classical Eco;
theories, and.

Situafim of m

7
immigrant populations, or are they spreading out into places with smaller foreign-born
populations? How are migration patterns of U.S.-born Latinos influenced by immigration?
Many more questions are raised in the theoretical section of this paper (Chapter 2). In
general, ethnic transformation is examined in two stages by comparing: 1) the relative
impact of non-Latino, U.S.—born Latino, and foreign-born pOpulation growth on changing
ethnic composition, and 2) the factors that lead to growth and loss of non-Latino, U.S.-
born Latino, and foreign-born population.

The second question addresses the assumption that immigration is destroying the
economic well-being of rural communities. It is posed to examine the impact of growing
foreign-born population on community economic development in conjunction with growth
and loss of non-Latino and U.S.-bom Latino population. It also calls for the examination
of the impact of foreign-born population growth on economic development within the
context of other factors that are known to influence community economic development,
such as regional job and wage growth, agricultural restructuring, social and human capital
deve10pment, and demographic changes. Specific hypotheses are developed in the

theoretical section of this paper (Chapter 2).

Dissertation Plan and Approach

The following chapter contains a review of. the literature relevant to the issues under
study. The first part of Chapter 2, the description of the problem, describes the uneven
ethnic transformation that is occurring in rural California, and the growing strength of
correlations between Latino concentration and community economic well-being. The
second part of Chapter 2, the theoretical review, interprets these trends through multiple
theoretical frameworks, including Dependency and World Systems Theories, Neo-
Classical Economic theories including Human Capital, Social Capital, and Central Place
theories, and demographic explanations. To date, there are few studies that explore the

situation of minorities becoming majorities in rural communities, or that relate

 

 

 

 

 

transnation
impacts of
foreign-bor
to develop .
phenomena
chapter. ear
applicabilir
correspond:
developed t
Question 1

Cha
study these
on either on
quantitative
quantitative
the past. Tl.
Causal facto:
Caliform'a f(
focusing 0n
Commllrtitie:
meaningftd I
mumllle sou
testing new 1

Quad.
Through Whit

explanallms

Study. While

transnationalism to rural community conditions in the United States, or that study the
impacts of Latinos who were born in the United States separately from those who are
foreign-born. Therefore, a broad range of theoretical perspectives is included in an attempt
to develop a comprehensive model of these understudied processes. These are complex
phenomena. Each theoretical perspective suggests one part of the picture. Within this
chapter, each theoretical perspective is briefly described, followed by an explanation of its
applicability to issues of ethnic and economic transformation, and the development of
corresponding hypotheses. Chapter 2 ends with tables that summarize the hypotheses
developed to explain: 1) ethnic transformation; and 2) community economic development
(Question 1 and Question 2, respectively).

Chapter 3 describes the methods of study. A multi-method approach is used to
study these complex dynamics. Previous research on immigration and colonias has relied
on either qualitative case studies of specific communities (e.g., Palerm 1991) or on
quantitative analysis of regional trends (e. g., Taylor 1995). This study uses both
quantitative and qualitative methods to gain a broader perspective than has been achieved in
the past. The quantitative analysis allows for testing and comparison of hypothesized
causal factors and outcomes, and allows for the inclusion of all rural communities in
California for study. These tests expand on those of other quantitative researchers by
focusing on the well-being of places rather than specific groups of individuals, using
communities as the unit of analysis rather than census blocks or states which are not
meaningful units for understanding quality-of-life, merging data in unique ways from
multiple sources, studying longitudinal processes as well as current outcomes, and by
testing new hypotheses.

Qualitative analysis compliments the quantitative tests by examining the context
through which the processes studied occur, and by allowing non-hypothesized
explanations to emerge. This gives a more concrete understanding of the trends under

study. While previous qualitative studies have focused on individual farrnworker

 

 

 

 

communitit
places in th
neighboring
broader unt
these places
communitie
research mi

By I
method are
of macro pa
are occurnr.
allowing on
Variables. V
factors behi
mismterpret
testing, Fm
[0 a Smaller
the generaliz

Chap
hyPOIheSCSt
ethnic ltansf
tralnSfOITItatit
remaining th
,\

[these u

r
isms“ Ihatt
8a" “mine t

9
communities, this project has taken a regional approach by intensely studying four different
places in the San Joaquin valley, comparing them to each other, and comparing them to
neighboring places with which they are economically and socially tied. This allows for a
broader understanding of multiple processes affecting the movement of people to and from
these places. However, it should be noted that while these places are typical of agricultural
communities, they may be less typical of other rural places in California. Future qualitative
research might investigate such differences.

By using qualitative and quantitative analysis together, the shortcomings of each
method are addressed. Quantitative analysis allows for hypothesis testing, and examination
of macro patterns, but it does not articulate the processes through which the macro patterns
are occuning. It also assumes apriori knowledge of the phenomenon under study,
allowing only for examination of those causal factors hypothesized to affect the outcome
variables. Without complementing the quantitative tests with qualitative analyses, the

factors behind the trends are, at best, left as mysterious forces, or, at worst, entirely

 

misinterpreted.4 On the other hand, qualitative data does not allow for direct hypothesis
testing. Furthermore, because of its in-depth nature, the scope of data collection is limited
to a smaller sample. Without complementing the qualitative analysis with quantitative tests
the generalizability and the strength of findings are unknown.5

Chapter 4 displays the results of multiple regression models used to test the
hypotheses that could be measured with quantitative data. Question One, which deals with
ethnic transformation, is explored with four models. The first model predicts ethnic
transformation with growth of Latino, non-Latino, and foreign-born population. The

remaining three models predict foreign—bom, Latino, and non-Latino population growth,

 

4 e.g., Saenz and Thomas (1991) found correlations between ethnicity and poverty in rural areas of Texas,
and that these trends were moderated by the industrial structure of the area. However, the historical
processes that have led to these correlations, and that maintain them, are unknown.

e.g., Palerm (1991) found that in one rural Latino community, non-Latino white residents left as Latinos
began settling in the community. This suggests that white flight due to prejudice is occurring, as well as

 

 

respecrivelj
hypothesia
(hiestion T
with grosvtl
demograph
developmei

Cha
put them in
social. and 1
nansformat
processes. '
(Question 1
Population 3
influenced c
ethnic trans:

Fina
Chaplet pres
n10del. This
and [he impj

iml’llcaltions

if it has had an

10
respectively, with those industrial, economic, social, and demographic variables that are
hypothesized to influence growth and loss of each type of population. Subsequently,
Question "Two is explored with a model that predicts community economic deve10pment
with growth of each population group, and with those industrial, economic, social, and
demographic variables that are hypothesized to influence community economic
development.

Chapter 5 uses the qualitative data to expand upon the quantitative findings, and to
put them in context. The first part of the chapter describes the geographic, economic,
social, and political patterns that have emerged as a result of the ethnic and economic
transformations occuning in rural California, patterns that foster the continuation of these
processes. The second part of the chapter looks at the question of ethnic transformation
(Question 1), analyzing the factors that have led to growth and loss of each of the
pOpulation groups under study. The final section of Chapter 5 looks at the factors that have
influenced community economic development in places that have gone through dramatic
ethnic transformations, compared to those places that have not.

Finally, Chapter 6 discusses the results and their implications. The first part of this
chapter presents a summary of the hypotheses, integrating them into a comprehensive
model. This is followed by conjecture about the future of rural communities in California,
and the implications of this research for places outside of California. Subsequently, policy

implications are discussed, as well as suggestions for future research.

 

economic restructuring. But it is unknown to what extent are this is occurring throughout California, and
if it has had an effect on the ethnic composition and economic development of many places.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

people of .\
communiti.
proportions
some place
199%. Bec
"colonia" h
residents. 7
Mexican se
bdt‘li home
e“Terrence
lhe Cconom
their meW
Presence 0f

To (

[0 [he grnwi

wroughout
ellnlllon USC‘
Fura] Calime:

 

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Review of the Problem

Changing Demographics in Rural California

The ethnic composition of rural California is rapidly transforming. Latinos, mostly
people of Mexican descent,6 have lived as numerical minorities within barrios of
communities for decades. However, beginning in 1970, and accelerating in the 19805, the
proportions of Latinos to Anglos began changing dramatically in agricultural areas, so that
some places became almost completely composed of Hispanic residents (Rochin and Lopez
1995). Because many of the new Latino residents are immigrants from Mexico, the term
“colonia” has been used to describe rural communities with a large proportion of Latino
residents. This is a Spanish term that literally means colony, and refers to the fact that
Mexican settlers often maintain ties to friends and family in Mexico, remitting earnings
back home (Rochin and Castillo 1995). While the number of colonias is increasing, their
emergence has been virtually ignored.7 It is not known why they are developing, or what
the economic consequences of their formation will be. However, there are indications that
their formation is due as much to the reaction of non-Latino whites, as to the actual
presence of immigrants.

To date, most of the changing ethnicity in rural California towns has been attributed

to the growing Latino population, especially immigration from Mexico (e.g., Palerm 1991;

6 Throughout this dissertation the term “Latinos” is used because it correSponds with the operational
definition used for census data analysis (i.e., all persons of Hispanic origin). However, most Latinos in
rural California are of Mexican descent, with an increasing number of immigrants coming from Central
America.

7 Notable exceptions include Palerm (e.g., 1995), Rochin (e.g., 1995), and Saenz (e.g., 1991).

11

 

 

Rochin an-
population
tould tncr
population
19805. the
[Rochin at
population
Tht
each of lit
spreads our
and l990.
numbers. 0
population
Throughou
White-non.
add the gro
Chinges in .

illustration

 

12
Rochin and Lopez 1995; Taylor 1995). However, this is just one facet of changing
population composition in California. Obviously, the proportion of Latinos in a place
would increase without an increase in the actual number of Latinos, if non-Latino white

population decreased. While the population of most rural communities grew during the

 

19805, the numbers of non-Latino white people decreased in absolute and relative amounts
(Rochin and Lopez 1995). Furthermore, the growth and loss of non-Latino White
population varied considerably from place to place (Allensworth and Rochin 1996).

These trends are shown graphically in Figure 1, which displays a dot and a box for
each of 126 rural places that were at least 25 percent Latino in 1980. The horizontal axis

spreads out the communities from a low to a high growth in total population between 1980

 

and 1990. The vertical axis measures the degree of population growth, in absolute
numbers, of each community from 1980 to 1990. The dots show the growth in overall
population of each community. The boxes show the growth of non-Latino population.
Throughout rural California, over 95 percent of the population classifies itself as either
white-non-Hispanic, or Hispanic. Therefore, gaps between the growth in total population
and the growth in non-Latino population indicate the amount of population growth due to
changes in Latino population. A few communities are named within the chart for

illustration.

 

 

Figure 1.

 

13

 

 

25000 -

20000 -

15000 -

10000

5000

' + Change in

  

Cathedral City

 

 
   
   
  

Overall
Population

_n_ Change in
N on-Latino
Population

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

  
 

E
.. r" l .7 . . EB 51- '
".l’liffln'jih‘lfig‘v) WINTER-i” m l sf’pvyrl'fl‘n.
‘ " L. ' ... L! -I 53 J ,2

 

u
‘ S m i‘fi
‘ E 9 a
S E a
e “Vi-”Elie all I
r “'lrtn'fig? g a t 9 ,.,_. _. E
A e T”

 

N
u
u

 

33" °~ = >52 3—-
""° .5 c _ gr' :_:. =
arreaéive a .2: 2~3§ E—E'Es-E’Eg— gases;—
_' =an =05 E "'3: 3335 4:53 "5 E g E” "3053-23
5 Z =..l.= E— > a: —3 Jr: 3-— : v :5 mm o:

= a 2’3 r: 538 “o “-* ~- = “—1 c =
.— L—o u 0. :50 U LI. 3: u g

5 cf g g 3 1.. 2 Em

E u. '- :2

Communities

 

 

Figure 1.

N on—Latino and Overall Population Growth in 126 Rural Places (1980-1990)

_g.__. -_.___' .4. 7

 

 

 

 

 

Fit
communit
changes in
making up
population
1990. Nor
corrnnuntt:
among bot
most often
Taylor l9§

ontement

M
becomes a
along With
increasingl‘
Cnttelated \
mnre econe
lnCTeailnglj
intros-ems
highfil Conc
Wealthy, 0r

because it it.

Con

[hill CQmmu

 

 

 

14

Figure 1 shows that most of the overall population growth in California's Latino
communities can be attributed to increases in Latino population. In these 126 communities,
changes in Latino population account for over 100 percent of the pOpulation growth,
making up for absolute losses in non-Latino white population. Without growth in Latino
population, the overall population in most places would have decreased between 1980 and
1990. Nonetheless, non-Latino Whites added significantly to the growth of many
communities. The reasons for such differing patterns of population growth and loss
among both Latinos and non-Latinos are unknown. While agricultural restructuring is
most often mentioned in the literature as the reason for immigration (e. g., Rochin 1995;
Taylor 1995), it does not explain the movement of peOple outside of agriculture, nor the

movement of non-immigrants, and it has not been tested with alternative hypotheses.

Ethnicity and Community Well-Being

While the changing ethnic composition of rural places may be interesting in itself, it
becomes a matter of urgent study when the economic conditions of places are exarrrined
along with demographic changes. At the same time that rural California is becoming
increasingly Latino, the economic conditions of rural places are becoming increasingly
correlated with the ethnicity of community residents. Rural areas have traditionally been
more economically homogenous than urban areas, but now some places are becoming
increasingly wealthy, while neighboring communities are becoming increasingly
impoverished. Those places that are becoming more greatly impoverished tend to have
higher concentrations of Latino residents, while those places that are becoming increasingly
wealthy, or maintaining their economic position, have lower percentages of Latinos.
Therefore, understanding the causes of the changing ethnicity of rural places is important
because it is closely tied to their economic well-being.

Comparison of the socio-economic indicators of places by their ethnic composition
reveals disturbing inequalities. Analysis of census data from both 1980 and 1990 revealed

that communities with higher percentages of Latino residents were significantly more

 

 

disadvant
and Rochi
capita inc
percent or
The avera;
places wid
Similarly.
college de;

majority p

T

Tamale St:
Per Capita
Unemployr
Poverty Ra
High schist

 

Furt
Strenger in

bivafjale reg

15
disadvantaged than communities with lower percentages of Latino residents (Allensworth
and Rochin 1995 ; Castillo 1991; Rochin and Lopez 1995). Table 1 shows that the mean per
capita income of all nonmetropolitan places in 1990 was $12,461, but in places in which 50
percent or more of the residents were Latino, the mean per capita income was only $701 1.
The average poverty rate among all rural California places was 15 percent, but among
places with a majority of Latino residents the average poverty rate was 28 percent.
Similarly, among all rural places, the average percentages of adults with high school or
college degrees were 69 percent and 13 percent, compared to 37 and four percent in Latino-

majority places.

Table 1. Community Economic Variables by Percent Latino

 

 

Average of all 0 - 25% 25 - 50% 50%+
Rural Places Latino Iatino Latino
in CA Places Places Places
Sample Size 365 252 52 60
Per Capita Income $12,461 $14,180 $10,456 $7,01 l
Unemployment Rate 5% 4% 6% 1 1%
Poverty Rate 15% l 1% 18% 28%
High School Graduates 69% 79% 60% 37%
College Graduates 13% 17% 20% 4%

 

 

Furthermore, the relationship between ethnicity and community well-being was
stronger in 1990 than in 1980 (Rochin and Lopez 1995). Table 2 shows the results of

bivariate regression equations that regress community poverty and education rates against

 

 

 

 

 

 

the percet
In each ca
ts'as stron
percent m
people in

.385 for e;
Latino pot
and .08 pe

:ncremed

Percent of
School De

Percent 0p
301116 Colle
"FrOm RCX

TnVe
allllfnach (e

Allholygh ge

\

8% table d1

 

.f-L _..~___’ _ _~.

16

the percentage of Latino residents in a community, using data from both 1980 and 1990.8
In each case, the amount of the variance in the dependent variable explained by ethnicity
was stronger in 1990 than in 1980, and the regression coefficient was larger. In 1980, one
percent more Latinos in a community was associated with an average of .173 percent more
people in poverty, while in 1990 the average percentage of people in poverty increased by
.285 for each percentage of the population that was Latino. In 1980, each percentage of
Latino population was associated with .51 percent fewer adults with a high school degree,
and .08 percent fewer adults with some college education. By 1990, these coefficients had

increased to .64 and .15, respectively (Rochin and Lopez 1995).

Table 2. Bivariate Regression Equations: Community Economic Indicators by Ethnic

 

 

Composition

Indicators Value of Intercept Coefficient R-Sguare
Percent in Poverty 1980: 7.40% 0.173 .41

1990: 5.00% 0.285 .54
Percent of Adults with High 1980: 71.70% -0.509 .61
School Degree 1990: 87.50% -0.644 .79
Percent of Adults with 1980: 11.10% -0.082 .17
Some College 1990: 10.10% -0.154 .3 5

 

 

*From Rochin and Lopez (1995)

Theoretical Overview
Investigations into immigration in rural areas and the consequent growth of social
and economic problems have generally taken either a World Systems/ Dependency theory
approach (e.g., Cantu 1994), or a rational-economic approach (e. g., Taylor 1995).

Although generally considered dissimilar, both perspectives view inequality as developing

 

8 This table differs from the Table 1 by including only places that were at least 25 percent Latino in 1980.

 

 

 

 

from diffe
and use it

Dr
betneen p
norld-ecc
lattno po
inequality
l'ntred St;
grotsth of
the norld-
through rt,

.\'e
prediction
marimizat
These lhec
through th
Ollht PTOC
lmlledimet
Social Cap
economic 1
material f0

Th:
developmg
elllllic 00m
EconOmica
Theory frat

ConTexts w]

17
from differences in the distribution of capital, and the ability of people and places to acquire
and use income, wealth, technology, and raw materials.

Dependency/World Systems Theories focus on the political and social divisions
between people and places that have developed over time, through the development of the
world—economic system. From a Dependency/World Systems perspective, the growth of
Latino population in rural areas of the United States, and the concurrent rise in economic
inequality, can be viewed as a result of the relative economic positions of Mexico and the
United States during a period of industrial restructuring. This perspective explains the
growth of poverty within economically prosperous areas as a result of the restructuring of
the world-economic system. However, it does not explain why particular places have gone
through marked ethnic and economic transformations, while neighboring places have not.

Neoclassical economic theories, on the other hand, have been used to make specific
predictions about economic outcomes. This perspective focuses on the role of utility
maximization within the marketplace to understand individuals’ behavior and outcomes.
These theories ignore social and political divisions between people that have been created
through the development of the world-system. However, they inform our understanding
of the processes that maintain inequalities among people and places, highlighting structural
impediments to equality. Furthermore, Neoclassical Economic theories on Human and
Social Capital extend the conception of what is capital by explaining differences in the
economic position of people and places with seemingly similar relations to capital in its
material form.

Therefore, this investigation seeks to build on the strengths of both perspectives by
developing an integrated theoretical model of the causes and consequences of the changing
ethnic composition of rural places in California. Hypotheses are based on Neoclassical
Economical principles and theories, but interpreted within the context of a Dependency
Theory framework. Principles of economic action are seen as embedded within social

contexts which alter predictions that would be made by conventional economic models,

 

 

 

consisten
core-pent
contexts.
the procei
ntthm an

E2
ethnicity 2
begins n i'
questions
of hypotht
is a descri

Th
311d Worlc
ST'SIEm, gu
increasing
Ollit'ing d
COmpositir
hi'POIheses
OfCapital a
discussed‘
Finally, de-
and age str

Fig
and comm,
lament,r2

levels 0f m.

C0813), 8601

18
consistent with the “new economic sociology” (see Portes 1995: 3). These contexts include
core-periphery differences, ethnic identities, immigration networks, changing demographic
contexts, and geographical factors. Neoclasssical economic models are used to articulate
the processes through which core-periphery relations are being recreated and retained
within and between rural communities of California.

Each of the following sections develops hypotheses about the causes of changing
ethnicity and economic development based on a unique theoretical perspective. Each section
begins with a brief explanation of the theory, and concludes with its applicability to the
questions regarding ethnic transformation and economic deve10pment, and the development
of hypotheses regarding each of the two questions. Prior to the discussion of the theories
is a description of the layout of the hypotheses.

The first three sections, Agricultural/Industrial Restructuring, Ethnic Subordination,
and World City Hypothesis, place California’s colonias within the context of the world
system, suggesting that it is economic differences between places and people that are
increasing ethnic and economic segregation. The subsequent section suggests that it is cost
of living differences between places that encourage migration and changes in ethnic
composition. The following two sections, those on Human and Social Capital, build upon
hypotheses in the previous sections by showing that non-tangible as well as tangible forms
of capital affect migration decisions and economic outcomes. Central Place theory is then
discussed, as economic decisions are embedded in geographic as well as social contexts.
Finally, demographic explanations are posed which suggest that it is changing family size
and age structure that explain ethnic and economic changes in communities.

Figure 2 summarizes the hypotheses posed in this chapter. Ethnic transformation
and community development outcomes are hypothesized to vary due to industrial factors
(agricultural and industrial restructuring, jobs and wages), previous economic status (1980
levels of monetary and human capital), migration, cost of living differences (housing

COStS), geographic context, and demographic changes.

 

 

 

FE EtE E E E\

 

 

 

l9

 

 

 

 

Industrial Factors
Agricultural Restructuring,
Job and Wage Growth

 

 

Previous Wealth
Wages, Wealth and Human
Capital, 1980

 

 

Social Capital
Immigration Networks,
Ethnic Conflict

 

 

 

 

[ Geogaphic Context:

l

 

Cost of Living Factors
Housing Costs

 

 

Size of Place
Demographic Changes
Change in Family Size and
Age Structure

 

 

 

 

imamfi—on
Growth and
Loss in
Population:
*Foreign-Born
*Non-Latino
*Latino

 

(Hypotheses 1.X)

 

Ethnic
Composition of
Communities

(Hypotheses 1.X)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Community Wealth and
Socio-Economic Health

(Hypotheses 2.X)

 

 

 

 

W1

1) What are the factors leading to ethnic transformation?

2) What are the factors leading to community economic development?

 

Figure 2. Overview of Hypotheses

 

 

 

 

 

discussec
for qualit
All hypot
orhenvrse
decimal l
decimal p
both in it
dashed-lit
the predic
tn the line
COmplerit

format in

EthnicA’a

Tl.
dissenatio
316 used 12

dcl‘lniti0n

Latino pop

Origin. Wh
The-t n0n.[
immigrant
TCVels of ll]

33 a cOntro

20

Structural Layout of the Theoretical Overview

Development and Presentation of Hypotheses

Within the discussion of each theory, the relevance to the study of colonias is
discussed, and corresponding quantitative hypotheses are presented. Questions of inquiry
for qualitative study are not explicitly posed, but are based on the same theoretical review.
All hypotheses refer to changes in community-level variables from 1980 to 1990 unless
otherwise noted. Hypotheses addressing question 1 have the number “1” preceding a
decimal point (1.X), while those addressing question 2 have the number “2” preceding a
decimal point. For clarity, each hypothesis corresponding to question 1 or 2 is presented
both in written and picture form. The outcome variable for question 1 is presented as a
dashed-line oval, the outcome variables for question 2 are presented as full-line ovals, and
the predictor variables are presented as rectangles. While all hypotheses are tested together
in the final model for each question, they are not presented together in a chart due to the
complexity of each model. However, the final model for each question is presented in table

form at the end of the theoretical overview.

Ethnic/Nativity Groups Used for Analysis

The population of rural California is divided into three groups within this
dissertation: non-Latinos, Latinos, and immigrants. The terms “non-Latino” and “Latino”
are used rather than “white/Anglo” or “Mexican-ori gin” so that the label corresponds to the
definition used to create the population variables. However, over 95 percent of the non-
Latino population is “white,” and over 80 percent of the Latino population is of Mexican-
origin. While it would be preferable to separate these groups into more precise categories
(i.e., non-Latino whites, non-Latino non-whites, non-immigrant Latinos, and non-Latino
immigrants) 1980 census classifications do not allow for these divisions. However, 1990
levels of the percentage of community residents that are non-Latino non-whites are included

as a control in the final analyses.

-.4‘._r

 

 

Distinctic
mdcconomic di?
Fans} 19851. In
gen up mm dill
rm Tnere‘
arguiaron. and I
zen different in:
mains of forerg
reward} from I

However
mm regar
regarding the on
the same reasons
nernorks. Nlidd
nonlatino whit.
are developed re
Whether this gro'

Latino and mm

Analysis of the 5

Economj
among the nche;
residents. While
the Same PTOCCS:
greater POVerty :
°‘a'-1993). Th.

2 1

Distinction of Latinos from immigrants is necessary because of the large cultural
and economic differences between these groups (e. g., Bean, et al. 1994; Neidert and
Farley 1985). Immigrants are not necessarily either citizens or legal residents, and most
grew up with different educational and economic expectations, as well as a different first
language. Therefore, it is expected that factors affecting the growth of immigrant
population, and the economic changes associated with this population growth, would be
very different from those affecting other Latinos. While the data do not allow for separate
analysis of foreign-born and U.S.-born Latinos, Latino population growth is examined
separately from that of foreign-born population growth.

However, because non-immigrant Latinos are understudied, development of
hypotheses regarding this group is much more difficult than development of hypotheses
regarding the other population groups. Latinos of lower SES may be attracted to areas for
the same reasons as Latino immigrants -- low-skill jobs, housing, or family and friendship
networks. Middle-class Latinos might be attracted to other places for the same reasons as
non-Latino whites -- social class conflict, or high-wage jobs. Therefore, fewer hypotheses
are developed regarding this group. However, exploratory analyses are performed to test
whether this group is affected by the same variables as those hypothesized to affect non—

Latino and immigrant population growth.

Analysis of the Socio-Economic Well-Being of Places

Economic goals of a place can be of multiple types, ranging from growth of wealth
among the richest community members, to the development of programs for low-income
residents. While these goals may be complementary, they can also be contradictory. Often
the same processes lead to both greater wealth among the richer community members and
greater poverty among the most disadvantaged (Brown & Warner 1991; Levy 1995; Snipp,
et a1. 1993). Therefore, community economic deve10pment is examined through multiple

measures, each representing a different facet of economic development: income, income

““\.

 

 

from wealth. ed
tell-being are g
uhltlt conceptu
Health" or hich c
unemployment l
ie'telopment are

deteiopment in

Depends
uealth. and resc
that pul'f‘li} tent
economic stmcti
economic grout
1971). Just as c
produce surplus
exchange and ur

World-s:
Composed of one
system is deterrr
global division r
develolied/under
places. Core pla
dependent Upon
political and eco

CCOnOmiC adVan‘

90 _
Peratrona] define

22
from wealth, education levels, poverty, and unemployment.9 The measures of community
well-being are grouped under two labels for the development of hypotheses: “Wealth,”
which conceptually consists of mean levels of income and wealth, and “Socio—Economic
Health” which conceptually consists of measures of economic distress (poverty and
unemployment). Factor analysis will be used to determine if separate scales of economic
development are appropriate, and which items best measure each component of

development (wealth versus health).

World—Systems and Dependency Theories

Dependency theory is a neo—marxist explanation of spatial inequality in technology,
wealth, and resources. Inequality is explained through the law of uneven development--
that poverty tends to be produced simultaneously with wealth. From this perspective, the
economic structures of “underdeveloped” places are seen as the result of their role in the
economic growth of other, more affluent, places (Castells 1973; Frank 1972; Hymer
1971). Just as capitalists become wealthy through the exploitation of workers forced to
produce surplus value, more powerful places exploit poorer places through unequal
exchange and undervaluation of weaker places’ labor and raw materials.

World—systems expands on dependency theory by emphasizing that the world is
composed of one complete division of labor. The economic position of any place in the
system is determined by the history of its incorporation, and its current position in the
global division of labor. World-systems theory also expands upon the
developed/underdeveloped dichotomy of dependency theory by posing a 3-tiered system of
places. Core places possess the most capital and technology, periphery places are
lependent upon the technology and capital of the core, and semi-periphery places serve as a
)olitical and economic buffer between the other two (W allerstein 1974). Because of the

economic advantages they possess, core areas are able to enrich themselves by exploiting

 

Operational definitions of all variables are listed in Table 5.

 

the economic <
resources thélt
some lllleldUi
people or place
economy. disp
sun'ue t‘Fuent

med
States can he s
the early 19005
inequality betu
shortages. The
force workers l
.‘ilcCaughan 1C,
potential incorr

immigration tl

The cur

restructuring in
my I0 more so
WOTk (Cohen 1
core,“ employn
“’O’l‘lng condit
”CW lessdesira
immigration rej
who. While

restructuring,

23

the economic dependence of peripheral areas through undervaluation of the land, labor, and
resources that peripheral areas and peripheral workers must sell to survive. Wealth for
some individuals or regions is therefore produced through the impoverishment of other
people or places. As traditional economies are destroyed through expansion of the world
economy, displaced peripheral workers migrate to core areas to gain capital, or simply to
survive (Fuentes and Ehrenreich 1989; King 1989; Sivanandan 1990).

From this perspective, the uneven economic status between Mexico and the United
States can be seen to both push and pull workers from Mexico to the United States. Since
the early 1900s, farms and firms in the United States have taken advantage of the economic
inequality between the two countries to attract labor from Mexico during times of labor
shortages. The United States has then used the political distinction between the countries to
force workers back to Mexico during times of labor surplus (Dixon, Martinez and
McCaughan 1985; Galarza 1977). High unemployment in Mexico, and large disparities in
potential income between the two countries encourage continuing and increasing

immigration (Huffman and Mirankowski 1996).

Agricultural and Industrial Restructuring

The current surge in labor migration can be seen as a result of global economic
restructuring in which global competition is increasing, core sector employment is giving
way to more secondary sector employment, and formal sector work to more informal sector
work (Cohen 1987; Sassen 1988, 1990b). In a process called “peripheralization at the
core,” employment in the core is becoming increasingly deskilled with lower wages and
working conditions, while immigrants, ethnic minorities and women are recruited to fill the
new less—desirable positions (Sassen-Koob 1982). The processes of restructuring and
immigration reinforce each other——restructuring of industry creates demand for low-wage
workers, while the availability of low-wage workers allows for continuing industrial

restructuring.

 

 

In rural
result of the r6
the L'nited Stat
eiuacuon thro
ashitt from on
labor force llllt
California was
oft;- ese changr
labor contractc
labor needs to
and unemployr
informal sector
through farm 1.

The rel
demonstrated t
Latino settleme
Latinos were ir

cOncentrations

agIlCultural COl
labor force in (

'"tensification .

Never t

all“ [he settle
0f l0w.wage la

24

In rural California, the growth in immigration is generally believed to be a direct
result of the restructuring of agriculture (e.g., Krissman .1995; Palerm 1991). Throughout
the United States, the restructuring of agriculture can be seen as an intensification of profit-
extraction through greater integration of farms into the control of agribusiness corporations,
a shift from owner-operated farms to hired-labor corporations, and peripheralization of the
labor force through the use of farm-labor contractors (Labao 1990). Partly because
California was never dominated by small family—operated farms, it has been in the forefront
of these changes, relying on a mobile, flexible labor force, and increasingly relying on farm
labor contractors (Galarza 1977; Palerm 1991; SCR 43 1991). Growers subcontract their
labor needs to contractors to undermine laws pertaining to documentation, wages, benefits,
and unemployment insurance. This allows the work to move from the formal to the
informal sector. More than 50% of the San Joaquin Valley’s work force is now hired
through farm labor contractors (Krissman 1995).

The relationship between immigration and the demand for agricultural labor is
demonstrated through changes in the ethnic composition of the agricultural labor force, and
Latino settlement patterns in rural California. In 1950, the highest concentrations of
Latinos were in towns along the United States - Mexico border. By 1980 the highest
concentrations of Latinos in rural communities had shifted to the Central Valley of
California, particularly in Kern, Fresno, and Tulare counties -- among the richest
agricultural counties in the United States (Rochin and Lopez 1995). Currently, the farm
labor force in California is almost completely Latino. Mexican immigrants have replaced
white farmers exiting the workforce, and have filled the new jobs created by the
intensification of California agriculture (Palerm 1991).

Never the less, while the assumption is that changes in agriculture have brought
about the settlement of immigrants in rural communities, it is also likely that the availability
of loW-w age labor has encouraged the intensification of California agriculture. Greater

availability of low-wage workers encourages the use of hired agricultural labor and the

 

 

 

 

grouth of large
ot't' imrnigratio
competition. at
and Lopez 199
make special is
IlRCAt ol l98
lRCA. met 1.:
Sills season.
under lRCA he
and Castillo 19

The rel;
reciprocal: [he
tthile the avail;
immigrant labo
‘1999lh’h010t
aisociated with
immlt‘lation w;
l'anable of litter
Previous study
immigration ha

atticultura] emplo-

. T--. ~ - -..r.m~.-r- 14“,, 251;... ;~- ~

V 25
growth of large farms. This perspective has been implied through suggestions that cutting
off immigration would improve the situation of most rural Latinos by increasing job
competition, and thus increasing farm wages (e. g., Krissman 1995; Martin 1995; Rochin
and Lopez 1995). California's farm lobbyists convinced the United States Congress to
make special farm worker provisions within the Immigration Reform and Control Act
(IRCA) of 1986 to ensure the availability of seasonal farm workers. Since the passage of
IRCA, over 1.2 million workers from Mexico have registered to work in agriculture as
SAWS (seasonal agricultural workers). Furthermore, the threat of employer sanctions
under IRCA has not impeded the hiring of undocumented workers (Palerm 1991; Rochin
and Castillo 1995).

The relationship between immigrant settlement and agricultural restructuring is
reciprocal: the availability of low-wage labor encourages the intensification of agriculture,
while the availability of agricultural jobs encourages more permanent settlement of
immigrant laborers and their families. This was the conclusion of Taylor and Martin
(1996) who found that in agricultural areas, a 100-person increase in farm workers was
associated with a 143-person increase in immigration, while a lOO-person increase in
immigration was associated with a 36-person increase in farm workers.19 As the dependent
variable of interest in this pr0posal is immigration, and this
previous study suggests that farm employment has a larger effect on immigration than
immigration has on farm employment, restructuring and agricultural employment is used

only as a dependent variable of foreign-born population growth.

10 However, they did not separate agricultural employment growth from growth in the number of
agricultural employees (assuming they were the same thing), so that it cannot be concluded that it was
agricultural employment, rather then other factors, that attracted farm laborers to these places.

 

 

 

Hypothesi
and grout
population

that is Lati

1|

Resume
Aretha

 

l

The tra
Changes in the
and intensrf}; (

Operators. Mo

Hl'Pothesis

Showed g“

l” the pace

 

In 194',
agn'culmre’ SUE

(Arvin) had be

. 1
IL,

26
Hypothesis 1.1: Places that experienced relatively more agricultural restructuring
and growth in agricultural employment showed larger increases in foreign—bom

population. This brought relatively larger gains in the percentage of their population

that is Latino.

 

  

 

        
 

 

  
  

  

   
   
 

Agricultural Growth in I érouth in Percentages
Restructuring/ Increasing Foreign-Born ' of Community that IS
Agricultural Employment Population ‘ ‘ Latho ’ ’

~ ‘
.---—

 

 

Figure 3. Hypothesis 1.1

The transformation of agriculture in California may also have brought some of the
changes in the non-Latino pOpulation of agricultural communities. As farms consolidate

and intensify, communities lose former independent small- and medium-size farm

Operators. Most of these operators are non-Hispanic whites (Palerm 1991; Rochin 1995).

Hypothesis 1.2: Places that experienced relatively more agricultural restructuring
showed greater losses in non-Latino population. This brought relatively larger gains

in the percentage of their population that is Latino.

 

 

 

 

 

 

v " ' ~ I

F AQHCUlthal Growth of Non-Latino _ 'Growth' in Percentage‘
Restructuring Population ' of the Community that '

‘ g is Latino ’ I

 

 

Figure 4. Hypothesis 1.2

In 1947, Goldschmidt documented the social consequences of industrialized
agriculture, suggesting that large farms which use labor promote community inequality and
lower community well being. He found that the socioeconomic relations in one small town

(AIVin) had become more like those characteristic of a highly differentiated urban economy

 

 

 

 

than an agricu
comparison to
tiere bigger ar
commerce. 20
advanced com
institutions. ar
hate supporter
1930's hate rer

From a
result of the pi
l’nequal derel
efforts for prof
PTOSpered beca
PTOSpects of W
“3363‘ Withou:
ll'orlting Condi'
l‘orkers remaii
person growth
Person increase
California With

The em
Olhtl fonns 0ft
Very i"lilortant
reslmCturjng 01

llldllSlria] term

. N01 all r

y es
'"dushalizell all

27
ran an agricultural town, due to Arvin’s dependence on large farms with hired labor. His
omparison town, Dinuba, was supported by smaller, family—operated farms. Arvin farms
vere bigger and farm revenue was six times more, but Dinuba had twice the local
:ommerce, 20% higher median incomes, over twice as much self-employment, more
advanced community infrastructure, more and better schools, more democratic local
nstitutions, and more civic organizations (Goldschmidt 1978). Many subsequent studies
have supported Goldschmidt’s findings, although studies done subsequent to the early
19803 have reported mixed findings (see Labao 1990).11
From a Dependency theory perspective, this inequality can be seen as a natural
result of the pursuit of economic gain, without regard to even economic development.
Unequal development occurs when industrial development is determined primarily by
efforts for profit-maximization (Storper and Walker 1989). Califomia’s agriculture has
prospered because it has been able to take economic advantage of the poor economic
prospects of workers from Mexico and Central America. Because they are paid such low
wages, without guarantee of continued employment, and with difficult and dangerous
0 working conditions, workers remain poor, and communities which host agricultural
3‘ workers remain impoverished. Taylor and Martin (1996), for example, found that a 100-
person growth in the number of farm laborers in communities was correlated with a 132-
person increase in poverty. This explains the existence of some of the poorest places in
California within one of the most profitable agricultural areas in the country.

The emphasis on agricultural restructuring, however, obscures the existence of
other forms of economic production in rural California. While agricultural employment is
Very important in Califomia’s colonias, it is not the sole form of employment. The
restructuring of agricultural labor use can be viewed as part of a general trend observed in

industrial restructuring, in which production is becoming increasingly decentralized,

 

n Not all types of restructuring have shown negative impacts on communities. While the growth of large
.ndustrialized farms with greater use of hired non-family labor tends to produce a tow-tiered class structure,

 

 

 

contracted out
tulnerable to 1
educational 1e
Gringen 1994
Given
rs possible the
res'ructunng.
pieces that ha
experienced g
robs and. there
accompanied '
economic heai
restructuring 5
economic hea.

itage growth.

the aroma] 6mm”

men: -‘-'M ' "

28

intracted out to peripheral or competitive-sector firms. Rural communities are especially
rlnerable to trends in restructuring because of their lack of economic power, lower
iucational levels, and less diversity in employment (Davidson 1990; Flora, et a1. 1992;
iringeri 1994).

Given that immigration and restructuring seem to be mutually reinforcing events, it
5 possible that decreasing community well-being might be due to agricultural and industrial
festructuring, and the resultant change in the availability and rewards of employment, in
places that have experienced immigrant population growth. Normally, places that have
experienced greater job growth in any sector should have a loosening of competition for
jobs and, therefore, economic growth. However, if the increase in jobs available was not
accompanied by wage growth, the effect of job growth on variables representing socio-
economic health would be minimal. Therefore, places that have experienced more
restructuring should show greater growth in wealth and income, but not greater socio-

economic health (i.e., less poverty and unemployment), controlling for overall job and

wage growth.

 

fl

the actual economic conditions of workers vary by the structure of local agricultural systems (Labao 1990).

 

 

 

Hypothes
experieno
increased
530th err

stealth.

looandWagz

f‘
A gncul u

‘lestwau

 

Becau
and detnments
Clhinges in p01
sane lime that
restructuring \r
lmmlgration lr
Conse(liltfnces
“Hammer [0 w,
33mg Therefi
rather [han SUr

individual com

 

 

29
Hypothesis 2.1: Places that experienced relatively more agricultural restructuring
experienced relatively less growth in community socio-economic health, but
increased community wealth. Places that experienced relatively greater job and wage

growth experienced relatively larger increases in measures of both development and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wealth.
lfiob and Wage Growth
A gricut ural
_ + G rowth
C Restruct uring in C ommmity
Wealth

 

 

Figure 5. Hypothesis 2.1

 

Because the effects of restructuring result in benefits for higher-SES individuals,

and detriments for those of lower-SES, examination of the interaction of employment with I

 

changes in population is crucial. For example, if a region experienced restructuring at the

same time that higher-SES people moved from Town A to Town B, the benefits of

llllll“

restructuring would accrue more greatly to Town B than to town A. If, at the same time,
immigration increased to Town A, this town would suffer more of the negative
consequences of restructuring than would Town B. Furthermore, because many people
commute to work, place of employment and place of residence are not necessarily the

same. Therefore, regional job growth and restructuring, measured through survey of firms

rather than survey of peOple, must be studied to determine the effects of restructuring on

individual communities.

 

Hypothes
by restrut
loss in no
restnrcrur
in immigr

l
henna .ttri a

G'avtr

 

/

lhe in
encourage the
119951 found 1
ll‘hites with 10
Iowage jobs
Therefore, pla
i”migration o
(“"9 Places th

growth in b Oti

' 8'- '.“ m V .3“ V ,‘

3O
Hypothesis 2.2: Community socio—econornic health was most negatively impacted
by restructuring in places that experienced growth in foreign-born population and a
loss in non-Latino population. Community wealth was most strongly enhanced by
restructuring, wage growth, and job growth in areas that experienced smaller growth

in immigrant population, and greater growth in non-Latino population.

 

 

 

 

. + Growth in
Emmerich and Wage _ Community
rowt Socio—Econom'c Health
.1»- '

 

 

( Reg‘onal «‘fl +
Restructuring V
v7 +

( Growth oi Foreigi-Born and

 

Non-Latino Population

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6. Hypothesis 2.2

The increasing informalization of work (both in agriculture and industry) might also
encourage the emigration of residents with better opportunities in other locations. Frey
(1995) found that metropolitan areas experiencing high immigration showed emigration of
whites with low levels of education. He hypothesized that this was due to competition for
low-wage jobs and inexpensive housing among low—skill native workers and immigrants.
Therefore, places experiencing restructuring might be experiencing both growing
immigration of foreign-born workers, and outmigration of native workers. At the same

time, places that are experiencing job growth without decreasing wages should show

growth in both native and immigrant populations.

 

 

Hypothe:
larger ga
grouth. t
foreign-b

ethnic co

 

l

lags—{3c

l

JG) Grow:

 

gmwlh, and Cl

independewy

31

Hypothesis 1.3: Places that experienced relatively larger wage increases showed
larger gains in U.S.-born population. Places that experienced relatively more job
growth, controlling for wage growth, experienced relatively larger growth of both

foreign-born and native pOpulations. Each of these, in turn, affected community

ethnic composition.

 

 

 

 

 

Growthd U..S Born
NonLat'no POpulation

Growthof U..S Born
Latino Popdation
Growth'n the ‘

 

 

 

  
 

L Wage Grorvth

(—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Growth'n inmigationj/ ' Peroert age d :
Jcb Groivt h from Nbxico’ ‘ Popuation that is
Lat‘n American + . ~ Lat'no .

 

Figure 7. Hypothesis 1.3

 

To summarize, previous research has suggested that agricultural restructuring has
led to growing Latino population in rural areas, and to declining economic conditions in
those same places. This evidence includes strong correlations between employment in
agriculture and the percentages of immigrants in places (Rochin and Lopez 1995; Taylor
and Martin 1996), and qualitative documentation of increasing informalization of
agriculture through farm labor contractors, growing use of workers from Mexico and
Central America, and impoverishment of communities that host farm workers (Krissman
1995; Palerm 1991; Taylor and Martin 1996). Hypotheses 1.1 through 1.3 and 2.1
through 2.2 expand upon these findings by 1) longitudinally testing the relationships
between agricultural restructuring and employment, immigration and Latino population
growth, and community economic well-being, 2) measuring changes in employment

independently of changes in population, and 3) looking beyond field work to examine the

diets of en

through the .

The 3
to imrnigrati
inunigrant a
lirrutations e.
no the \l'or
States from 3
past. and the
The dei'elop
economic op
born outside
Places can di

Mexi
since the inci
Guadalurie-}
“935 from N.
abOut the ties
(Mexico yen
European).
m0re MCSllzt
do in Carin)”
Whites (Almv

K

.12 Tailor andn
l lglathn ant

32
effects of employment in other industries.12 Moreover, alternative explanations are tested

through the addition of hypotheses deve10ped in the following sections.

Ethnic Subordination / Labor Market Segmentation

The hypotheses offered above assume that growing numbers of low-wage jobs lead
to immigration and Latino population growth because of the limited economic options of

immigrant and minority workers. From a World-Systems perspective, these economic

 

limitations can be seen as developing through the incorporation of California and Mexico
into the World Economic System--the conquest of what is now the Southwest United
States from Mexico, the legal restrictions placed on Mestizos and Native Americans in the

past, and the continuing restrictions placed on people born outside of the United States.

 

The development of California’s economy has involved the segregation of pe0ple’s
economic options based on race/ethnicity. It continues to restrict legal Options for persons
born outside of the United States. Therefore, it is possible that the ethnic composition of

places can directly affect their economic well-being.

 

Mexicans and Mexican-Americans have been considered “second class” citizens
since the incorporation of California and other Southwest states with the Treaty of
Guadalupe-Hidalgo in 1848 (Nakano Glenn 1991). The conquest of California and other
areas from Mexico, and the migration of non-Hispanic white people to the area, brought
about the development of political distinctions between people based on their place of birth
(Mexico versus the United States) and their ancestry (native American/Mestizo versus
European). Historically, Mexican-origin men and women, especially those who looked
more Mestizo or native American, were restricted in the type of work they were allowed to
do in California, and the legal rights to which they were entitled compared to non-HiSpanic
whites (Almaguer 1994).

12 Taylor and Martin (1996) did longitudinally examine the influence of farm and non-farm work on
Immigration and poverty, but they did not independently measure employment and residence (i.e., they

Althr
mme
perceptions r
options for e
Furthermore
do. and whet
jobs that lie:
unstable cm;
by employer:
serr’ices rNa]

Giver
rllSdlll'amage
lmtttigrant pt
economic cor
m3." bt panic
However, the
CO"lllltlnities
Continuing n

grOWlh Of can

”mm

In the

\

assumed [hat m(

33

Although racial segregation is now illegal, ethnic labor market segmentation and
structural economic impediments continue. They are maintained ideologically through
perceptions of who is “legitimate” in a position and who is not, and by structurally limiting
options for education, social relationships, and access to programs and services.13
Furthermore, workers from Mexico m legally restricted as to the type of work they can
do, and whether or not they can work at all in the United States. By restricting the types of
jobs that Mexican and Mexican—American workers can obtain, competition for low-wage
unstable employment remains strong. Their limited options allow for greater exploitation
by employers, and greater vulnerability to competition with other migrants for jobs and
services (Naples 1991; Eades 1986; Cohen 1987).

Given that Latinos, and especially immigrant Latinos, continue to be economically
disadvantaged compared with non-Latino whites, it is possible that growth in Latino and
immigrant population can lower the economic profile of a place, regardless of other
economic conditions. The economic differences between ethnic and national-origin groups
may be partially explained through possession of financial, social, and human capital.
However, the migration patterns of immigrants, Latinos, and non-Latinos into and out of
communities might also have direct effects On community economic well-being because of
continuing cultural, social, and structural gaps between these groups. The influence of the

growth of each population group on community development is discussed below.

Immigrants (Mexicans)

In the popular press, it has been suggested that immigration is obscuring the

 

assumed that more farm workers meant more agricultural employment), and they did not control for the
influence of non-immigrant migration, housing, or demographic changes.

13 For example, the selective enforcement of immigration laws againSt workers, bl“ “Qt employers, and the
accidental deportation and detainment of documented irnrni grants create fear and insecurity in all immigrants,
making them more passive workers (Eades 1986; Cohen 1987). Refusal to rent or sell housing to
individuals based on ethnicity, or to provide translators and services in Spanish language, limits Latinos’
economic Options. Police harassment of Latinos limits integration into the community. Fear Of attracting
governmental attention to friends and family members and 9001’ English Skills limit the pursuance 0f
medical and social assistance for which citizens and legal immigrants are eligible (Amato 1996; Benson
1996; Gouveia and Stull 1996', Martin, Taylor and Fix 1996)‘

 

 

financial suc
recent immi
19961. In 0
residents are

Ther
econonric di
lorr-rrage let
their earning
19931. Hort-e
one is a prefr
conditions. .
maintains rrr:
immigrants r
English profi
1995; V erdu;
from llexicc
cOllltolling f(
Mexican jmn
l’leltican.0n'E

There
growth and 3‘
from Mexico
i"litter of inrr
Lower] and T

that negallVe,

14h ShOul
d be

34
financial success of Latinos and the nation as a whole by confounding the conditions of
recent immigrants with those Of established residents (e. g., Chavez 1989; Samuelson
1996). In other words, it may appear that places with greater percentages Of Latino
residents are doing poorly, when it is only immigrants who are poor.14

There is no doubt that immigrants from Mexico and Central America suffer multiple
economic disadvantages compared to native workers. They have been preferred sources of
low-wage labor because they lack alternatives for higher earnings, because many compare
their earnings to those possible in Mexico, and because many are undocumented (Rumbaut
1992). However, possibilities for increasing occupational status and earnings are limited if
one is a preferred worker just because he/she accepts lower wages and more difficult
conditions. Among undocumented workers, unequal enforcement of immigration laws
maintains many immigrants as permanent “marginal” workers (Cantu 1995). Even among
immigrants who obtain legal documentation, lack of work experience in the United States,
English proficiency, and education keep them disadvantaged in the labor market (Ortiz
1995; Verdugo and Verdugo 1985; Trejo 1995). On average, it takes male immigrants
from Mexico 16 years to overcome the wage gap with U.S.-bom Mexican-origin workers,
controlling for human capital, citizenship, work, and demographicvvariables, while female
Mexican immigrants’ average earnings never “catch up” to the average earnings Of
Mexican-origin women born in the United States (Allensworth 1996).

Therefore, immigration might have a direct effect on measures of communities’
growth and socio-economic health due to the poverty and low-incomes of most immigrants
from Mexico. Evidence on this is contradictory. Many studies have shown no negative
impact of immigration on employment and wages in urban labor markets (e.g., Bean,
Lowell and Taylor 1988; Fix and Passel 1994). However, more recent studies have shown
that negative impacts might be hidden by emigration Of less skilled native workers (Frey

14 It should be noted that the proponents of such theories view this possibility optimistically, as a sign
that the United States does not have to worry as much about Latino poverty. ThJS perspective assumes that

 

 

1995: Taylc
foreign-bon
incomes. Tl
examined si

and must all

Hypothe

growth 5

Foreign-E
C

 

Whil
0f the relatio
explanation,
Pttcentage 01
well-being w
immigrants r.
p lllllary Sour.

There

it rs natural an d

' “‘2' 'c-IL ' " £—;__ '-

35
1995; Taylor and Martin 1996). Furthermore, Taylor (1995) found that places with large
foreign-born populations had both more people in poverty and higher mean family
incomes. Therefore, the effects of immigration on community economic health must be

examined simultaneously with migration patterns Of native workers and job/wage growth,

and must allow for both positive and negative economic effects.

Hypothesis 2.3: Places that experienced relatively more foreign born population

growth showed greater decreases in socio-economic health and wealth.

 

    
 
    
 
 
 
 
    

 

Growth in
Community

F oreign-Born Population Socio-Economic Health

Growth

  

 

Growth in
Community
Wealth

 

 

 

Figure 8. Hypothesis 2.3

U. S. -Born Latinos (Mexican-Americans)

While the much lower socio-economic status of recent migrants might explain part
of the relationship between ethnicity and community well-being, it is not an adequate
explanation. Correlations among community well-being variables and ethnicity (i.e., the
percentage of Latino residents in a community) are stronger than correlations of community
well—being with immigration (i.e., the percentage of Latino residents who are recent
immigrants to the United States) (Allensworth and Rochin 1995). If immigration is the
primary source of colonia inequality, this pattern should be in reverse.

There are huge gaps in the education and earnings of U.S.-bom Mexican-
Americans and non-Hispanic whites (Ortiz 1995; Trejo 1995). Reasons for the lower

g

it is natural and apprOpriate for immigrants to be much poorer than established residents.

 

 

educational
Coleman 19
nrinorityr id
“underclass
and farnil y t
Mexican-Ar
our society.
rates of retu:
are less like]
difficult for
be that grovr

decreases in

Ht'pothe

ShOWed :

Latino
C

 

36
educational achievements of Mexican-Americans include lower mean SES (e.g., see
Coleman 1968; Hum 1978; Kozol 1991), the formation of Oppositional (involuntary
minority) identities (e.g., see Matute-Bianchi 1991; Ogbu 1987), assimilation into the
“underclass” (Rumbaut and Cornelius 1995); lack of financial support for higher education,

and family obligations (Young 1992). Each of these barriers to education result because

 

Mexican-American children, on average, grow up with a lower socioeconomic position in
our society. U.S.-bom Mexican-ori gin men and women earn less than whites, have lower
rates of return to some human capital characteristics, are more likely to be in poverty, and
are less likely to be wealthy (Allensworth 1996; Farley 1990). Because it is much more

difficult for Mexican-origin men and women to acquire human or financial capital, it might

 

be that growth in U.S.-born Latino population, as well as growth in immigrant population,

decreases indicators of community socio-economic health.
‘ |

 

Hypothesis 2.4: Places that experienced relatively more growth in Latino population

showed smaller increases in economic health and wealth.

 

Growth in
Community
SociO-Economic Healt

Growth in
Community Wealth

 

  
  
 

Latino Population
Growth

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 9. Hypothesis 2.4

MIL-1.41.119

Alta
mpple Ioca
1990: Jame
Mexican-0r
(imrnigratio
human capi
Immigratior
accrue to a <

nude in a c'

H}pothc
their no]

health 211

No:
P09

 

%
The.

cOnceived w
high‘]CVe| (1‘

Importance),

37

WE

Alternatively, outmigration of middle-class residents has been seen to economically
cripple local communities in both central city and rural areas (Flora, et al. 1992; Luloff
1990; James 1990). White residents tend to be more affluent and better educated than
Mexican-origin residents (Bean, et a1. 1994; Trejo 1995), so communities that experience
outmigration of whites lose financial capital for potential community investment, and
human capital for future growth. At the same time, economic gains brought by
immigration (loosening of human resource constraints, farm and firm profitability) cannot

accrue to a community if the farm and business owners profiting from immigrant labor

reside in a different place than their workers.

Hypothesis 2.5: Places that experienced relatively smaller losses / greater growth in

their non-Latino white populations showed greater gains in measures of economic

health and wealth.

 

 

 

 

Growth in
' Health
J<: -
Growth In

Figure 10. Hypothesis 2.5

Non -Latino White
Population Growth

 

 

 

 

Internal Core and Peripheg

The core-periphery distinction articulated in World-Systems theory can be
conceived within countries as well as between them. Urban sociologists have noted that
high-level decision-making in the corporate world is concentrated in cities that have greater

numbers of administrative offices (termed “world cities” because of their global

Importance), with progressively less decision-making power and income in regional cities,

 

and in lcsm
City Hypotl
most from t
and attract t
structure. E
adaunrstrati
highly dape

Sim
power hare
tor technolt
be unusual
Ll'Son r993
areas and la
better-educz
I0 greater fi:
i"Ulligratior.
im’ttstment l
Capilal in pl;
inuestmem t
Ll’SOn 1993.

Fr0n
Places Wilhi]
and they are
alld food PR
to other plac
Places With 1

lhell Own CO

vmg- ‘w—v— -~-—~— ‘ .

38
and in less centralized places (Friedmann 1986; Hymer 1971; Sassen 1990). The “World
City Hypotheses” suggests that for this reason particular large cities in core countries profit
most from the expansion of the world-economy, as they control most of the world’s capital
and attract the most highly educated people to fill higher-level positions in the corporate
structure. Economic deve10pment is more difficult for areas with fewer high-level
administrative offices and services, as they lack political and economic power and are
highly dependent upon outside capital.

Similarly, rural sociologists have noted that the most remote places with the least
power have the greatest difficulty in self-determination. Their dependence on other areas
for technology, production, and marketing forces rural land, labor, and natural resources to
be undervalued, weakening options for economic growth and development (Falk and
Lyson 1993). Because high-skill workers are more highly needed and rewarded in core
areas and larger cities, rural and periphery areas are faced with the outmigration of their
better-educated residents (Luloff 1990). Furthermore, investment from outside often leads
to greater fiscal burdens (through service provision, infrastructure demands, and
immigration of people desperate for work) as places compete with each other for
investment by offering cheap labor, land, and resources. Poverty is created by the loss of
capital in places where disinvestment has occurred, an_d in places that have lured capital
investment through undervaluation of their labor and resources (Davidson 1990; Falk and
Lyson 1993; Feagin and Smith 1987; Tickamyer and Duncan 1990; Timberlake 1987).

From this perspective, Califomia’s rural colonias can be viewed as peripheral
places within a core economy. Their residents are largely immigrants and ethnic minorities,
and they are almost completely dependent upon outside capital, especially the agriculture
and food processing industry. Therefore, they might be stagnating economically compared
to other places because of this economic dependence. From the opposite perspective, rural
places with more capital (greater wealth and higher incomes) should be better able control

their own economic growth and more easily accumlflate wealth and maintain economic

Al

Lu‘- _ ..—o.

 

 

-l

 

 

humm.r

economic C

HypOth

measur I

1 mom

i\

 

 

Fun
(mostly nor
well as the
COntpositior
mi”Olilies a

group mem

Hypmhr

"On-Lat

POPUlati

 

39
viability. That is, places that started out with more wealth should have experienced greater

economic deve10pment over the last decade.

Hypothesis 2.6: Places that were wealthier in 1980 experienced more growth in

measures of socio-economic wealth and health.

 

 

 

 

' + Growth in
Community Socio-Eoonomic
[ income and Wealth, 1980 + Health
C Growth in
Community Wealt

Figure 11. Hypothesis 2.6

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, wealthier places should attract wealthier, better-educated residents
(mostly non—Latino whites) because of the greater economic opportunities they hold, and as
well as the loss of opportunities in poorer places. This should, in turn, affect the ethnic
composition of places, with poorer places becoming more concentrated with poorer ethnic
minorities and richer places attracting wealthier people who are more likely to be majority

group members.

Hypothesis 1.4: Places that were wealthier in 1980 experienced more growth in
non-Latino population, and relatively smaller gains in the percentage of their

population that is Latino.

 

—"'-"

Growth in Percelua‘e
Greater Income and Growth of Non-Latino - ' ’ - g ‘
Wealth, 1930 J-—> Population ‘ 3f the iCSOLna'lrlltlnglty malt '

Q
-u—

 

 

 

Figure 12. Hypothesis 1.4

 

 

 

differences
New York
because of
settling in 1
active in th
agnculturau‘
ot‘their \iO'
proximity f
agricultural

lmr
cost of livir
more likely
rents (Huan
imilligrams
Children [ha
HUffman ar.

the uUhderc

 

40

Qu—stLmegem

Economic “pull” factors other than jobs and employment, such as cost of living
differences, should also be contributing to population growth. Fitchen (1995) found that in
New York State very poor migrants were attracted to declining rural areas primarily
because of the availability of affordable housing. She noted that very poor families were
settling in places with affordable housing despite a lack of jobs because they were not
active in the workforce. Unlike the families in Fitchen's study, Mexican immigrants to
agricultural communities are very active in the labor force. However, because the location
of their work varies from job to job, housing affordability might be more salient than job
proximity for settlement decisions. There is a lack of quality affordable housing for
agricultural workers in most agricultural communities (Alarcon 1996; Krissman 1995).

Immigrants’ migration decisions are more sensitive to earnings opportunities and
cost of living than are native workers. In the Midwest, it was found that immigrants were
more likely to leave weak labor markets, and less likely to live in areas with higher housing
rents (Huang and Orazem 1996). Furthermore, rural areas are especially attractive to
immigrants with families, since they are perceived as a safer environment for raising
children than places that immigrants can afford in metropolitan areas (Amato 1996;
Huffman and Mirankowski 1996). Worries about crime and assimilation of children into

the “underclass” have even resulted in reverse (urban to rural) migration (Palerm 1991).

 

 

 

 

MA

Hu:
individuals
and deman
Workers, at
1991: Tick:
human capi
b356, or to 1
in etimings
between lllI
Capital (fig
Futihermorl
more high];
more high!)
are 1653 able

Diff

“growth, (

 

41
Hypothesis 1.5: Places that experienced larger gains in housing availability and
affordability, and those that had more affordable and vacant units in 1980,
experienced more foreign-born population growth. This brought larger gains in the

percentage of their population that is Latino.

Lower Housing + Growth in v 'Growth in the. ~
Costs and Great er Fo reign-Born + ' Percentage of the ‘
Housing Availability Population '——~ Population that is '

~ ~ _La_tlno_ — ’

Figure 13. Hypothesis 1.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

Human Capital Theory

Human Capital Theory explains earnings and employment as a function of
individuals’ efforts, abilities, and personal investments, in accordance with labor supply
and demand. Workers with weaker skills or less education are assumed to be less valuable
workers, and so are poorly rewarded in the labor market (Snipp, et al. 1993; Summers
1991; Tickamyer, et al. 1993). At the community level, places with lower overall levels of
human capital are less able to attract industrial investment, to deve10p their own industrial
base, or to plan for their future economic growth. Many studies have noted that differences
in earnings and poverty levels between nonmetropolitan and metropolitan areas, and
between inner city and suburban areas, are accompanied by large differences in human
capital (e.g., RSS Task Force 1994; Brown and Warner 1991; Snipp, et a1. 1993).
Furthermore, decline in both central-city and rural areas is often characterized as a loss of
more highly educated residents, or residents with broader labor market experience. As
more highly-skilled working-age pe0ple move out of a community, the remaining residents
are less able to sustain community organizations and services (Luloff 1990; James 1990).

Differences in human capital can also be used to account for the growth, or absence

of growth, of ethnic enclave economies. Scholars have questioned why some minority

 

 

communiti
“enclaves'
Manning (
economy:

and 3) arm
capital (kn:
and ethnic

human cap
business en
to plan for

human capi

Hl'poth
educate.
[hall pla

[\

Ewan
ide

 

\

Thee
explanations
within 30cm]

Status by FCC

 

 

42
communities have been able to develop dynamic economies, while most minority
“enclaves” (or segregated communities) do not (e.g., Snipp, et al. 1993). Portes and
Manning (1986) describe three prerequisites for the development of an ethnic enclave
economy: 1) a large number of immigrants with business experience; 2) sources of capital;
and 3) available sources of low-wage labor. Of these, the first is the most crucial. Human
capital (knowledge of business skills) is necessary to take advantage of labor availability
and ethnic solidarity to create an economically vibrant community. Therefore, from the
human capital perspective, lack of human capital in a place means less productivity, less
business experience (and so less entrepreneurial activity), and less experienced leadership
to plan for future economic growth. However, the relationship between prior levels of

human capital and community development has not been longitudinally tested in colonias.

Hypothesis 2.7: Places with higher levels of human capital (i.e., places with more
educated residents) in 1980 experienced more growth in economic health and wealth

than places with lower levels of human capital.

 

 

 

rowt in
+ Comm unity Socio-
Education Levels of Economic Health
Residents, 1980

 

4- Growth in
J - Comm unity Wealth

Figure 14. Hypothesis 2.7

 

 

 

 

Social Capital Theory
Theories on Social Capital “bridge the gap” between cultural and structural

explanations of inequality by showing that capital can be embedded in an intangible form
within social relations. These relations can be seen as helping to maintain core-peripheral

status by recognizing “insiders” and “outsiders” to one’s own group (e.g., through

 

 

 

 

 

 

citizenship
one posses
capital pos
Economic

through thl

Immigrant
It i

patterns in
from hlexr
uere the rr
to the Unit
0“ .lObS ant
satisfactior
Krissman

pOpulation
between [h
mlgrant W(
HOWCVeL .
dCClSlons a
exPlaining
aVililable d

growth, Q

e'g-r total
ensenbrenn.

43
citizenship/residence status and connections to capital). The volume of social capital that
one possesses is dependent on the size of one’s social networks, and on the amount of the
capital possessed by each of the people to whom one is connected (Bourdieu 1986).
Economic advantage is gained through trust (i.e., expectations and obligations), and

through the provision of information (Coleman 1988).”

Immigration Networks

It has been well established that social networks are integral to understanding
patterns in international migration (e.g., Portes and Bach 1985). In a study of immigration
from Mexico to the United States, Massey and Espinosa (1996) found that social networks
were the most important predictor of both migration and permanent settlement from Mexico
to the United States. Networks ease the costs of migration through access to information
on jobs and housing and financial assistance, and they bring emotional and financial
satisfaction by reuniting people with friends and family members. (Alarcon 1996;
Krissman 1995, Massey and Espinosa 1996). From this perspective, the growth of Latino
population in agricultural communities could be seen as resulting from growing networks
between the United States and Mexico. This perspective explains the continual supply of
migrant workers, despite the decreasing availability of good-paying, stable jobs.
However, while social networks have been found to be important for explaining migration
decisions among individuals, at the level of places the importance of social networks for
explaining changing ethnic composition has not been explored. The quantitative data
available does not allow for examination of the influence of social networks on population

growth. Qualitative analysis will be used to explore this factor.

15 e.g., rotating credit associations (Coleman 1988). and informal and “character” loans (Portes and
Sensenbrenner 1993).

 

 

 

Hypo
comm

born]

popull

 

through be
among cor
This may j
govemmen
horizontal I
Study Of fur
how Open c
311d having
spedilc inn
clilnate ofe
(Pones and
“Onomic a
Pittmoled a

ThOmas am

 

 

44

 

Hypothesis 1.6: Places in which residents had stronger social networks with
communities in Mexico and Central America experienced larger gains in foreign-
bom population. This brought relatively larger growth in the percentage of their

population that is Latino.

 

 

.—
. Q

I ‘ - ~
. . . . Growth In the
Immlgratlon + Growth tn F orelgn-Bom + ’ Percentage of ‘.
NGtWOFKS POPU'al'O” ~Populat ion that is Latiflo '

Q

Q - - - ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

r

Figure 15. Hypothesis 1.6

 

Communigz Social Capital

At the community level, social capital is presumed to enhance economic growth
through better trust, communication, new forms of organization and shared resources

among community members and outside sources (Fukuyama 1995; O’Brien, et al. 1991).

 

This may include vertical networks -- those with regional, state, and federal levels of
government and organizations, lateral networks -— those with other communities, and
horizontal networks -- those that exist among actors within the community itself. In their
study of rural places, O’Brien, et al. (1991) found that community viability was affected by
how open community leaders were to working together and accepting others as leaders,
and having larger horizontal and vertical social networks. Solidarity and trust found in
specific immigrant communities (horizontal social capital) have been suggested to permit a
climate of entrepreneurial deve10pment not visible in communities without social capital
(Portes and Sensenbrenner 1993). Moreover, social trust and cooperation between
economic actors (i.e., government, business, community groups) is currently being
promoted as the formula for successful urban economic development (e. g., Magnet 1989;

Thomas and Lontz 1991).

ll
enhance g
econometr
greater co
obtained b
rel'enue di
1995i If I
that comm
relatit'el} g
social capi
Wealth isn
transforme
members).
groups wit
horizontal
ETOUps {Op
elites. who
economic i
maintain (h

Ith
dismbullOr
lend ‘0 tesi
b€nefit ffor
Wither 19g
TlCltamyer1

c0"liilllnity

 

 

45

There is also evidence that positive social relationships within conununities may
enhance mam of incomes and wealth, as well as quantity. Evidence from an
econometric study of business firms suggests that increased levels of social capital (i.e.,
greater c00peration and trust among business associates) increase overall total revenue
obtained by the firms, and also increase the likelihood that firms will adopt more equitable
revenue distribution plans with each other (i.e., act less selfishly) (Robison and Hanson
1995). If these findings are extrapolated to organizations within communities, they suggest
that communities with relatively broader and stronger horizontal networks will experience
relatively greater and more equally-distributed levels of economic development. When
social capital does not exist among various groups within a community, an equalizing of
wealth is not likely to occur. Warren (1978) describes the modern community as
transformed from being integrated horizontally (through local networks among community
members), to integrated vertically (linked to groups outside the community, but not to other
groups within the community). As a result of the dominance of vertical links over
horizontal links, he claims that the local community has become an arena for special-interest
groups to pursue their own goals, rather than an arena where groups work together. Local
elites, who are more likely to have outside ties (i.e., vertical linkages), pursue their own
economic interests in the name of development, and block outside development efforts to
maintain their power in the community.

It has also been shown that where community relations are based on the uneven
distribution of power (e.g., systems of race, class, and gender), those with greater power
tend to resist changes that might alter the system. As a result, groups without power rarely
benefit from community development efforts (Bokemeier and Gar kOViCh 1993'. Brown and
Warner 1991; Dill and Williams 1992; Saenz and Thomas 1991 ;-Snipp, et a1. 1993;
Tickamyer, et al. 1993). Poor residents are often not even perceived as part of the

community (Fitchen 1991). If no social capital exists between the economically privileged

 

 

 

and under
economic

Se
whites oft
their need
lntili 199E
fractured c
through re
oun self i:
expected t.
greater si g
be tested it

source of e

 

 

 

 

 

46
and underprivileged community members, development efforts tend to produce greater
economic inequality.

Several case studies of California communities show evidence that established
whites often do not recognize immigrants as part of their community and do not recognize
their needs in community development efforts (e. g., Palerm 1991; Runsten, Kissam, and
Intili 1995). Ethnic and class divisions between local elites and immigrants have resulted in
fractured communities, within which the elite has tried to develop the local economy not
through residents’ demands for social equity, but through real estate speculation, and their
own self interest (Krissman 1995 ; Runsten, Kissam, and Intili 1995). Therefore, it is
expected that places with better relationships between community members will show
greater signs of economic health than will places with poor relationships. While this cannot
be tested with the quantitative data available, it does suggest that ethnic conflict might be a

source of economic disadvantage in communities experiencing changing ethnicity.

Hypothesis 2.8: Places with larger vertical, lateral, and horizontal networks showed

relatively more economic growth and deve10pment than places with less extensive

networks.

 
      

Growth in
Community Socio-
Economic Health

+ Growth in
Comm unity Wealth

Figure 16. Hypothesis 2.8

 

 
   

Horizontal Social

Vertical, Lateral, and
Capital 1:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

conseque
demands
especiall)
settlemen
communi
communi
mmmm
cmigratio
blamed or
decline is
h
it part of
four rural
bflWeen Vi
[he While l
divided int
directly [e5
true, one Vt

Cmammn

- . vv. . l’ .. . _ « I ,
wmw u. . , . g . . . ‘ _ .. - _ ,.
' . 0%-,“ . ~,anwur—nflm- . -.... o-u .. ._ ._<

47

Social Conflict

Unlike other forms of capital, social capital can have negative economic
consequences as well as positive effects (see Portes and Sensenbrenner 1993). If greater
demands are placed on group members to support newcomers, some may leave the group,
especially if social ties are weak with the new members. In the case of a community, the
settlement of low-income newcomers can increase the financial demands on established
community members. If established residents do not accept the newcomers as part of the
cormnunity, these increased demands can lead to resentment and exodus from the
community. In fact, fear of incorporating newcomers into one’s social network can lead to
emigration by itself. “White flight” from urban areas, for example, has been consistently
blamed on whites’ fear of integration with Blacks, and their fear that prOperty values will
decline with greater numbers of minority residents (Fox 1985; James 1990).

It has been shown that established whites often do not recognize Latino immigrants
as part of their community (e.g., Palerm 1991; Runsten, Kissam, and Intili 1995). Three of
four rural Latino communities profiled by Palerm (1991) showed increased ethnic conflict
between whites and Latinos as the Latino population increased in size. In one community,
the white population seemed to leave as the Latino population moved in. Two others
divided into distinct ethnic neighborhoods. While quantitative data is not available to
directly test the hypothesis that ethnic conflict led to white emigration, if this hypothesis is
true, one would expect non-Latinos to have left those communities with larger

concentrations of Latinos. Qualitative analyses can also explore this possibility.

 

 

 

Hypt
expel
incre.
their

(the?

Popula
Latino l

g

 

economic
It differs l
lliorld C it
‘0 CXplain
qUantity a
region, an
l3 llOl ecol
improvem
exPerienei
ecorlOmic
“Oi to ShOI
Places is n
Prefer the .
infolTllEllio

 

48
Hypothesis 1.7: Places with larger percentages of Latinos and immigrants in 1980
experienced less growth, and more loss, in their non-Latino population due to

increasing ethnic conflict. This brought relatively larger gains in the percentage of

 

 

 

 
 
  
 

   
 

 

 
 

their population that is Latino.
f Percentage of the N -H . , ’ Growthin " ‘
as WSW - - assesses; -
9 Conflict Population \that ispLatino , '

Growth . _ ..

 

Born, 1980

 

 

Figure 17. Hypothesis 1.7

Central Place Theory

Central Place Theory conceives the development of places as a function of their

economic importance to the surrounding region, and their proximity to other central places.

It differs from
World City Hypothesis in its emphasis on geography rather than active corporate planning

to explain inequality of places. According to Central Place theory,vplaces offer a greater
quantity and variety of goods and services if they are 1) central to a larger complementary
region, and 2) serve an area that is distant enough from a place of a greater order so that it
is not economically feasible to travel to the larger place (Christaller 1966). With
improvements in transportation and communication, many smaller places in rural areas are
experiencing declining numbers of businesses and services, as pe0ple travel further for
economic activities (Warren 1978). Small towns are increasingly used as places to reside,
not to shOp or socialize (Barkley and Rogers 1986). The concentrated capital of bigger
places is more attractive to stores and service providers, as well as to consumers who
prefer the variety of goods available in larger places. However, improvements in

information technology are also making remote areas more attractive for business

investment (Flora, et al. 1992). Therefore, while some businesses and services may be

 

 

 

consolid;
not be as

h
difficult I
some of l
cheaper i
nearest Cl
in rural C
life l gooc
"Cost of 1
less \‘iabl
populatio
such 35 5e

has not be

Hypor

in non

the W]

 

. . . v , ‘I. a . ~~ V . .
'3’ '._..‘ ,4... L. ___~_- ’.,.._'_H- -I-.-0 _‘_. _. h- _, , _ , .. g

 

49
consolidating, decreasing the quality of life in smaller communities, rural employment may
not be as strongly affected.

In rural California, small towns might be declining because it is increasingly
difficult to remain economically viable, due to competition from larger places. A study of
some of the same California communities found that prices were higher, but housing was
cheaper in smaller places. Product availability increased the further a place was from the
nearest central city, and with the size of the place (Rochin 1990). Therefore, smaller places
in rural California may be losing non-immigrant residents because of decreasing quality of
life (goods and service provision) and business viability. However, as mentioned under
“Cost of Living Effects,” immigrants from Mexico/Central American might be attracted to
less viable places because of the increased housing affordability accompanying loss of
population. While size of place has been documented to influence quality of life variables
such as service availability (Rochin 1990), its relevance in explaining migration decisions

has not been explored.

Hypothesis 1.8: Places that were larger in 1980 experienced relatively larger gains
in non-immigrant population than smaller places and, therefore, smaller growth in

the percentage of their population that is Latino.

 

Growth in Percentage

arger Population 4. Non-Latino - . mm ‘
and Geographic Population Growth Of the fiomfiggjty tha: '

Size, 1980 ‘ ~ .

 

 

 

~---

 

 

Figure 18. Hypothesis 1.8

At the same time, larger places, and those serving a larger geographical area, should

be more economically viable.

 

 

 

 

Hurt

geog

late
Geog

 

pOpulatic
more ch i]
The amm
encouragl
1995). A
loss of yo
Children 3
metropoli
nOIl'latin
Significam

the ethnic

 

50
Hypothesis 2.9: Places that were relatively larger in terms of population and

geography in 1980, experienced larger gains in measures of economic well—being.

 

 
 
  
 
 

 
 

Growth in
Community
Socio—Econ om it: Health

     
 

 

Larger Population and
Geographic Size, 1980 _
Growth tn
Community Wealth

   

 

Figure 19. Hypothesis 2.9

Demographic Effects

Family Structure
It is possible that growth in Latino population, as well as loss of non-Latino

population, are partially due to changing family structure. On average, Latino families have

more children than non-Latino families (Allensworth and Rochin 1995; Castillo 1991).
The amnesty provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986 have
encouraged family reunification, further increasing family size (Massey and Espinosa
1995). At the same time, non-Latino white families may be experiencing the traditional
loss of young people that is seen in rural communities, an outmigration that occurs as

children seek jobs in other places(Fitchen 1991). Nationally,fertility rates among non—

metropolitan women are declining (Johnson 1993) and might be contributing to a loss of

non-Latino population in rural communities. It is unknown whether there has been any

significant change in family size in colonias, and whether this has substantially impacted

the ethnic concentration of places.

 

Deer
Hsr

Age Sml

l
also be a
People p
Common
adults to
the strong
greater p
are puttin
SChool re

edllcatior

51
Hypothesis 1.9: Increasing Latino family size and decreasing non-Latino family size
brought increasing Latino population and decreasing non-Latino white population.

This brought growth in the percentage of the population that is Latino.

— i
G h
Q

‘
' Growth in Percentage‘
' ofthe Population that ‘_
IS atrno

/‘ ’
Q l
‘

    

 

 
 

Foriegn-Bom and
Latino Population
Growth

Increasing Latino +
Family 8

ize

 
 
  

    
    

 

 

       

 

 

Decreasin Non- .
- - . Non- Latino
”Spag'fzjam'w Population Growth ~ . _ _ _
Figure 20. Hypothesis 1.9
Age Structure

The larger poverty rates associated with immigration and Latino concentration could
also be a result of the larger families of immigrants and non-immigrant Latinos (more
people per family living on low incomes). Per capita poverty rates are based on all
community members, including children, and children in rural America are more likely than
adults to be poor (RSS Task Force on Rural Poverty 1994). Therefore, it is possible that
the strong correlations between community ethnic composition and poverty are due to the
greater percentages of children in places with more Latinos. Belief that immigrant children
are putting financial stress onto communities through greater use of public assistance and

school resources prompted the passage of Proposition 187, which denies medical and

educational services to immigrants and their children.

 

HYP

P0PL

unde

Foreig
lml

90F

.—-

 

Final \fo

Question

ll
in rural C
l'.S..b0n
relative in
(four sepa
Communil
included a
COmpletelj
CO“Central

hlPOIhese

52
Hypothesis 2.10: Places that experienced relatively more immigration and Latino
population growth experienced larger growth in the percentage of their population

under age 18, which led to lower levels of community socio-economic health.

 

   
 
  

  
 
  
  

 

Growth in
Community
Socio-Economic
Health

 
  
  
 
  

 
  
   

% of Population

Foreign-Born and non-
Under Age 18

immigrant Latino
population growth

   

 

 

Figure 21. Hypothesis 2.10

Final Models

Question 1: Ethnic Transformation
What are the factors leading to uneven ethnic transformation? Ethnic transformation
in rural California can be attributed to three sources: foreign-born, non-Latino white, and
U.S.-bom Latino population growth and loss. Analyses are proposed to determine the
relative importance of each of these, and the factors that influenced each of these to change
(four separate equations). In the model that predicts growth in the percentage of the
community that is Latino, the percentage of the community that was Latino in 1980 is
included as a predictor, along with a quadratic term, because places that were almost
completely Latino in 1980 could not experience as much growth in Latino population

concentration (i.e., there is a ceiling of 100%). Figure 22 and Table 3 summarize these

hypotheses.

 

 

 

i Percc
' (line;

(i

f _

 

 

 

 

 

53

 

 

 

 

 

Foreign-Born , ------ .‘
Population Growth _ ‘ x
’ Growth 1n the

 

 

 

- U.S.-Bom Latino 0 .' Percentage of
Predictors from Population Growth N‘. the Population .'I
Hypotheses 1.1 - 1.8 J that is Latino

 

 

 

 

 

(linear and quadratic
terms)

 

 

Non-Latino 0/ ...... v’
[Percent Latino, 1980\ Population Growth J —/

 

 

 

 

Figure 22. Model for Prediction of Changing Ethnic Composition

 

 

 

F—

Mpg
Agricul
Wage C
hme
Income

Housing
Cost.
1980

lmmigrz

Size of 1
Latin
1980

POpulati
Size,

Growth 1
Size

Growm j
Famil

 

m

, 1980
A.Eificult
Men
:NOI lest:
Used as
inlen

 

54

Table 3. Hypotheses Predicting Ethnic Transformation

 

Foreign-
Bom Non-Latino Latino Hypothesis Number
Independent Variables] Population Population Population and Section in which it

 

 

Growth Growth Growth is Discussed _
Agricultural Restructuring2 + - NR 1-1 & 23 Restructuring
Wage Growth NR + + 1.3: Restructuring
Job Growth + + + 1.3: Restructuring
Income and Wages, 1980 _ + NR 1.4: Internal Core/Per.
Housing Availability and + NR + 1.5: Cost of Living
Cost, 1980 and change
1980 — 90
Immigration Networks3 + NR NR 1.6: Social Capital
Size of Foreign-Bom or NA _ NR 1.7: Social Capital
Latino Community,
1980 4
Population and Geographic NR + + 1.8: Central Place
Size, 1980
Growth in Latino Family + NR + 1.9: Demographic
Size
Growth in Non-Latino NR 4. NR 19: Demographic
Family Size

 

 

NR = no relationship hypothesized; NA = not applicable. All variables are measured from
1980 to 1990, unless otherwise noted.

'Agricultural census data is available in off-year, five-year increments: 1982, 1987, etc.
Measurements are taken from 1982 - 1987. . .

3Not tested quantitatively, examined through qualitative intervrews. . .

4Used as a substitute for ethnic conflict, examined more thoroughly through qualitative
interviews.

 

job and
of city ft

in a con

7

man

Agricultl
lob and '
Foreign.
Latino P.
Non-Lari
InCome 2

Hilman (
S0Cliil NI
Fountain
70 Childr

lAll val-i2
(”least

 

2Hlpothe

Hlpolhe
4NOI teste

 

 

55

Question 2: Economic Growth and Development

What are the factors leading to uneven economic development? Changes in
measures of community socio-economic well-being are hypothesized to result from
immigration, Latino and non-Latino population growth and loss, agricultural restructuring,

job and wage growth, changes in the age structure of the community, and the consolidation
of city functions. While they were presented separately, all hypotheses are tested together

in a complete model. Table 4 summarizes these hypotheses.

Table 4. Hypothesized Predictors of Community Wealth and DeveIOpment

 

 

C_om_muaitx
Socio- Hypothesis Number and
Comqu Economic Theory from which

Independent Variables1 M M M
Agricultural Restructuring2 + - 2-1 & 23 Restructuring
Job and Wage Growth2 + + 2-1 & 23 Restructuring
Foreign-Born Population Growth _ _ 2. 3: Ethnic
Segmentation

Latino Population Growth - 2.4: Ethnic Segmentation

Non-Latino Population Growth 2.5: Ethnic Segmentation
Income and Wages, 1980 2.6: Internal
Core/Periphery

Human Capital, 1980

Social Networks4
Population and Geographic Size

2.7: Human Capital
2.8: Social Capital
2.9: Central Place

_ 2.10: Demographic

77g+++ ++.
+++ ++

 

% Children in Community3

1All variables are measured longitudinally, from 1980 to 1990, except restructuring
(measured as the change from 1982 to 1987), and city size (measured at the 1980 level).
NR = no relationship hypothesized

2Hypothesized to interact with changes in foreign-born and non-Latino population

3Hypothesized to be caused by changes in foreign-born and Latino population.

4Not tested quantitatively, examined through qualitative interviews.

 

 

 

Dill

1
LS. Ce
are done
incorpor
concentr
ll'S. BL
POpulalh
area. anc‘
Not all p
the Sam

I
Patterns 1
U5. Cen

fimls ant

l6 0" aver:
lllCluded in
”The (tens
Used rEther
WPUlation
0‘78 not in.
experiencq

 

 

CHAPTER 3. METHODS

Quantitative Analysis

Data on all variables except those on employment are taken from the 1980 and 1990
US. Census of POpulation and Housing STF3 files for the state of California. Analyses
are done at the level of places. “Places" include all incorporated places and non-
incorporated census designated places. Census designated places are densely settled
concentrations of population that are identifiable by name, but are not legally incorporated
(US. Bureau of the Census 1993). Places are included in these analyses if they had a
population between 1,000 and 20,000 in 1990, were completely outside of an urbanized
area, and were not a military base. This yields a total of 362 communities in California.
Not all places from the 1990 STF3A files are included in 1980 STF3A files. This reduces
the sample size to 288.16 The counties and places under study are listed in Appendix A.

Data on employment are taken at the county level from the County Business
Patterns Data of the Standard Statistical Establishment List for 1980 and 1990, and the
US. Census of Agriculture for 1982 and 1987.17 Employment is measured by survey of

firms and farms rather than people. Counties are used as proxies for labor market areas

 

‘5 On average, places for which no data is available in 1980 are smaller and less Latino than the places

included in this study.

17The census of agriculture is taken every five years, including 1982, 1987, and 1992. The 1987 data are
used rather than the 1992 data so that only agricultural changes that occurred at the same time as the
population change being measured are included. While this excludes half of the time period under study, it
does not include any time that is not under study. This is especially crucial as California agriculture
experienced a catastrophic freeze in 1990, subsequent to the collection of pOpulation and housing data.

56

 

becaus
units m
develot

prograr

Slgmfic
places f
[0 help

Variable

can be c
inditidu
commur

(
1990. in
Pfircent I
Pficenl 1

Would b

 

 

57
because of the restrictions imposed by the design of the data sets. 13 However, county
units may be conceptually at least as appropriate as labor market areas in this case since
development planning, emergency and protective service provision, and entitlement
programs are managed by county government.

Models are tested through ordinary least squares direct-entry regression equations.
Significance levels are not directly relevant to these analyses as the entire population of
places fitting the criteria for inclusion are analyzed. However, significance levels are used
to help determine which variables are of most importance in explaining the outcome

variables. ‘9

Variables

All analysis is done at the level of communities. No individual or group outcomes
can be discerned from these analyses because it is not possible to know which specific
individuals lived in each community in both 1980 and 1990. Each variable represents a
community or a county characteristic.

Changing community ethnic composition is defined as the increase, from 1980 to
1990, in the percentage of the population that categorizes themselves as Hispanic. If 50
percent of the residents of a community reported themselves as Hispanic in 1980, and 75
percent reported themselves Hispanic in 1990, the value of this variable for this community
would be 25.

Latino, non-Latino, and foreign-born population growth20 are each measured as the

percentage increase in population from 1980 to 1990.21 If the number of Latino residents

 

‘8 Labor market areas are available through the PUMS data rather then the STF data. However, PUMS data
does not offer statistics at the level of individual places and cannot be matched with STF data.
19 While Beta coefficients indicate which independent variables are the strongest predictors, the significance
levels are based on both the strength of the relationship (the beta), and the standard error of the SIOpe,
indicating which relationships are both strong and consistent.
20 The STF files produced by the census do not separate foreign-born residents by ethnicity. Therefore, this
group cannot be separated into Latinos and non-Latinos, and Latinos cannot be separated into U.S.- and
foreign-born.
21Non-Latino population M is used in place of non-Latino population Log to minimize confusion, as
Latino and immigrant pOpulation change is discussed in terms of growth instead of loss.

 

 

of a cor
350% g
500 for
populat
growth
them
populat
had a -5
variable
pOpulaI
root fur
foreign-
growth
Rather I
calculat

1980. (

POVCrty
1990. (
Who re;
educatic

over 3g:

\
77

.. Trans
Percentag
Lam108:
each Van}
FOTClgn t
23 c'g', “
numbers,

58
of a community increased from 1000 to 1500 between 1980 and 1990, that community had
a 50% growth in Latino population (Latino population growth = 50). If a community had
500 foreign-born residents in 1980, and 750 foreign-born residents in 1990, foreign-born
population growth for that community would be 50 percent (foreign born population
growth = 50). Because some communities lost population, they have negative values for
the population growth variables. If a community experienced a drop in non-Latino white
population, from 1000 non-Latino residents in 1980 to 500 non-Latino residents in 1990
had a -50% population growth (non-Latino population growth = -50). These three
variables are positively skewed because a few communities experienced tremendous
population growth from 1980 to 1990. Therefore, each was transformed through a square
root function, reducing the skew.22 Furthermore, 14 cases had negligible numbers of
foreign-born and/or Latino residents in 1980 (less than 20 people), and all experienced
growth in these populations, so that the percentage change numbers are extremely hi gh.23
Rather than delete these cases, the growth in foreign bom/Latino pOpulation variables are
calculated assuming a minimum of 20 foreign born and Latino residents in all places in
1980. Correlations among population growth variables are presented in Appendix B.
Community development and wealth variables are measured as follows: Growth in

poverty is measured as the growth in the percentage of people in poverty from 1980 to

1990. Growth in unemployment is measured as the growth in the percentage of people

who report themselves as currently unemployed from 1980 to 1990.24 Growth in

education is measured as: 1) the increase from 1980 to 1990 in the percentage of residents

over age 25 with a high school education and 2) the percentage of residents over age 25

 

22 Transformed percentage growth of foreign born = SQRT(% growth of foreign born +101) ; Transformed
percentage growth of Latinos = SQRT(% growth of Latinos +77) ; Transformed percentage growth of Non-
Latinos = SQRT(% growth of non-Latinos +69). (The constants were added so that the minimum value of
each variable was greater than zero prior to transformation.) The initial and transformed skews were:
Foreign born growth (2.4, .8); Latino growth (4.1, 1.6), Non-Latino growth (2.9, 1.1).

23 e.g., With only 6 Latino residents in 1980 an increase of only 20 residents, although small in absolute

numbers, would be an increase of over 300%.

 

 

with a .
percap
housch

skewet

for an (
hypoth
develot
econon
develo]
on fat
measur
them. a
Wealth
.74). U;

measur

ofec0n
income
ITilllsfol
graduat
degree ‘

0fresid

fan a
CroItbacl

_.—_.._ ” -'-_'.._'- LL’.‘ -n! .5,

59
with a 4wyear college education. Growth in income is measured as the percentage change in
per capita income. Growth in wealth is measured as the percentage change in per capita
household interest, dividend, or rental income. Growth in per capita wealth was negatively
skewed, and so was transformed through a cubic function prior to analysis.25

Factor analysis was used to combine the community deve10pment/wealth variables
for an overall measure of economic health. Contrary to what was expected from the
hypotheses (i.e., that wealth and income would not cluster with other community
development variables), the two factors that emerged did not represent wealth and
economic health, but separated the high school education measure from the other
development measures. Therefore, the analysis was performed again, allowing for only
one factor consisting of all development variables. Although the high school education
measure did not originally cluster with the other variables, it is correlated with each of
them, and does not decrease the reliability of the scale.26 The factor matrix for the scale is:
Wealth--transformed (.61), Income (.84), College (.67), High school (.47), Poverty (-
.74), Unemployment (—.69). This factor explains 46 percent of the variance in the five
measures.

Several variables measure the economic well-being of places in 1980 for prediction
of economic development. Community wealth in 1980 is measured as the per capita
income from interest, dividends or rents. This variable was positively skewed and so was
transformed through a log function prior to analysis.27 The percentage of high school
graduates in 1980 is measured as the percentage of residents over age 25 with a high school
degree in 1980. The percentage of college graduates in 1980 is measured as the percentage
of residents over age 25 with a college degree in 1980.

24 This measure is not ideal for farmworker communities as unemployment varies considerably throughout
the year. However, it is the only measure of unemployment available in the 1990 data.
25 Transformed % Change in Wealth = (Percent Change in Wealth)3.

6 If an additive scale was developed with standardized scores on the six measures, it would have a
Cronbach’s alpha of .76.

In

 

 

 

 

wages
grout]
counu
nthe
tonln
anpk)

labOL

oncha
payrol
nfldza
These
renruc
concet
Ownen

agncul

 

 

60

County employment variables include overall growth in employment, growth in
wages, mean wages in 1980, and growth in the amount of hired farm labor. Employment
growth is measured as the percentage growth in the total number of employees in the
county from 1980 to 1989 (calculated through survey of firms). Wage growth is measured
as the percentage increase in the earnings per worker (the total annual payroll divided by
total number of employees) from 1980 to 1989. Growth in the amount of agricultural
employment is measured as the percentage growth in the annual payroll to hired agricultural
labor. It was positively skewed and so transformed through a square root function.28

Measures of agricultural restructuring (measured at the level of counties) are based
on changes (1982 - 1987) in: 1) the percentage of farms with hired labor; 2) the annual
payroll for hired farm labor; 3) the average size of farms; 4) the market value of products
sold; and 5) the percentage of farms that are operated by an owner who lives on the farm.
These measures were chosen as indicators of current trends that have been noted in the
restructuring of agriculture including increasing separation of labor and management,
concentration of farming into smaller numbers of larger farms, and transference of
ownership to non-farm entities.29 Two scales emerged from factor analysis of the
agricultural restructuring variables. One represents areas that are moving to more industrial
type farms, the other represents areas that are moving to high-profit, labor-intensive crops.
Factor loadings for the first measure are: percentage growth in farms with hired labor (-
.19), percentage growth in wages towards hired labor (.46), percentage growth in average
farm size (.84), percentage growth in crop values (.16), percentage growth in farms
operated by owner (-.64). Those for the second measure were: percentage growth in
farms with hired labor (.82), percentage growth in wages towards hired labor (-. 12),

percentage growth in average farm size (-.01), percentage growth in crop values (.68),

 

27 Transformed Wealth 1980 = Log10(wealth in 1980+85). Initial and transformed skews were 3.2, and .1,
respectively.

28 Transformed growth in agricultural payroll == Square root (growth in agricultural payroll). Initial and
transformed skews were 4.5, and 1.2, respectively.

 

 

 

 

pcrcer

variab

Appet

popula
These

percen

data at
are chi

family

.88) to
units in
C0mm
1980 u]
alahab

Square

exPens
meaSUtt
and me

more [h

 

 

61
percentage growth in farms operated by owner (-.29). The first agricultural restructuring
variable was negatively skewed, and was transformed through a square function.3O

Correlations among county employment and agricultural variables are presented in
Appendix C.

The percentage of the pOpulation that was Latino in 1980 and the percentage of the
population that was foreign born in 1980 were both hypothesized to influence migration.
These variables are very highly correlated (r = .93) so only the variable representing
percent Latino in 1980 is included in the analyses.

Growth in family size among Latinos and non-Latinos cannot be computed with the
data available. Therefore, growth in the percentage of Latino and non-Latino residents who
are children (i.e., the number of children per adult) are used as proxies of growth in overall
family size.

Housing availability is measured through an additive scale (Cronbach’s alpha =
.88) consisting of: 1) the percentage increase (1980 to 1990) in the number of housing
units in the community; 2) the percentage increase in the number of bedrooms in the
community; and 3) the number of new units built from 1980 - 1990, as a percentage of
1980 units. The percentage of units vacant in 1980 is also included as a measure of
availability. This variable showed a positive skew and so was transformed through a
square root function prior to analysis.31

Housing costs in 1980 is measured as the mean of: 1) median of owner housing
expenses and 2) median rent (Cronbach’s alpha = .74). Growth in housing costs is
measured as the mean of the change from 1980 to 1990 in median owner housing expenses
and median rent (1990 Cronbach’s alpha = .78) Owner housing costs are, on average,

more than rental costs. Therefore, the costs of living in places with larger house-to-

 

29 See Labao (1990) for a detailed description of these trends.
3O Transformed Ag. Restructuring-1 = (Ag. Restructuring-1 + 6)2. Initial and transformed skews were -2.7,
and .45, respectively.

‘ transformed vacant: square root (vacant).

 

 

 

apann
more t
demar

larger

teogrz

transit

popule
per M
and 4)
\‘ariabl

interac

Appen

32 In 0rd
c("Ilbini
c0Relate
33 IIansh

 

62

apartment ratios are slightly exaggerated with these measures. However, given that it is
more difficult for poorer pe0ple to obtain non-rental housing (due to down payment
demands), this figure reflects the greater financial burdens for people to live in places with
larger house-to-apartment ratios.32

Size of place in 1980 is measured through the population size in 1980, and the
geographic size in square kilometers. Geographic size was positively skewed so it was
transformed through a log function prior to analysis.33

Interaction terms were constructed by multiplying percentage growth in non-Latino
population and percentage growth in immigrant population with: 1) percentage growth in
per worker wages; 2) percentage growth in number of jobs; 3) agricultural restructuring- 1;
and 4) agricultural restructuring-2. Prior to construction of interaction terms each of these
variables was mean-corrected to reduce multicollinearity between main-effect and
interaction terms.

Descriptive statistics of all variables (original and transformed) are reported in

Appendix D. Table 5 displays operational definitions of all variables.

32 In order to account for the varying costs of differently-sized apartments, originally a scale was produced
combining costs of 0, 1, 2, and 3+ bedroom apartments. However, this scale was found to be so highly
ggrrelated with mean rent (r = .98) that it seemed more reasonable to use the single measure.

transformed area = log10(area).

Ai

 

 

 

Outta
Varia.

Media
l'arial

§
lndepe
EIOge
l'arial

//

 

 

._..— ~ ——~—.w

63

Table 5. Operational Definitions of Variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outcome Ethnic Growth in the pr0portion of the population that considers
Variables Transformation themselves Hispanic from 1980 - 1990.
(Growth in the % (e.g., 50% -> 75% = 25).
Latino residents)
Community Combination of Growth in: Unemployment, Poverty,
Development Education Levels, Income, and Wealth:
*Unemployment 1980 - 90 growth in the percentage of residents who are
currently unemployed
*Poverty 1980 - 90 growth in the percentage of residents who are under
the poverty line
*Education 1980 - 90 growth in the % of residents, ages 25 and over,
with: l) a high school degree; 2) a college degree
*Income 1980-90 growth in per capita income
*Income from Wealth 1980-90 glowth in income from interest, dividends, rents
Mediating Latino POpulation Percentage growth in population from 1980 - 9O
Variables Growth (e.g., 1000 ->. 1500 = 50%)
N on-Latino Percentage growth in population from 1980 - 90
Population Growth (e.g., 1000 -> 1500 = 50%)
F oreign-Born Percentage growth in population from 1980 - 90
Population Growth (eg, 1000 -> 1500 = 50%)
Independent Agricultural Scale constructed from survey of farms in the percentage
Exogenous Restructuring - 1 change (1980 - 1990, county level) in:
Variables More industrial- *annual payroll for hired labor (+)

type farming

Agricultural
Restructuring - 2
More high-profit,
labor-intensive cr0ps
Growth in Hired
Labor on Farms

Job Growth

Wages, 1980

Wage Growth

_ Wealth, 1980

Human Capital, 1980

___Percent Latino, 1980

Size of Place, 1980

Housing Availability

“Housing Affordability

Family size, Latino
and Non-Latino
Percentage of children
in the community

*average size of farms (+)
*number of farms operated by owner living on the farm (-)
Scale constructed from survey of farms in the percentage
changes (1980 - 1990. county level) in:
*percentage of farms with hired labor (+)
*value of crops produced (+)
Percentage growth in the annual county payroll for hired
agricultural labor, 1982- 1987, from survey of farms
The % growth 1n the total number of employees in the
county from 1980-90, measured through survey of firms
1980 total payroll of firms in the county / number of
workers
The percentage increase in wages, 1980-90
Per Capita income from interest, dividends, or rent, 1980
1) Percentage of adults over 25 with a college degree
2) Percentage of adults over 25 with a high school degree
Percentage of residents classifying selves as Spanish- -origin
1) Total number of residents, 1980
2) Area in square kilometers
Scale composed of:
1) % growth in the number of housing units, 1980-90
2) % growth in the number of bedrooms, 1980-90
3) # of units built between 1980-90 as a % of 1980 units
*Mean of: median owner housing expenses and mean rent.
*1980-90 change in the measure described above.
Growth in the percentage of Latino and non-Latino residents
under age 18 from 1980-90.
Growth in the percentage of residents under age 18 from
1980-90.

 

 

 

 

nnpkr
cohec
chest
reghr
tenns
sune)
intoh

localr

tchrus
Hone
thedoi
Theor
when
Whhe
€0Ven
Condu
CCOno
in one
half n.

Pohhc

 

 

64

Qualitative Analysis

Qualitative data were collected in March and April of 1996, focusing on four rural
communities in Califomia’s San Joaquin Valley. Places were selected because of their
geographical proximity to each other, the size of their Latino pOpulation relative to their
Anglo population (ranging from small to large), and their reliance on agricultural
employment. The first stage of community selection began nine months prior to data
collection. Through examination of quantitative data, ten places were selected as possible
cites for study. They were chosen because of their agricultural base, their location in a
region that was going through dramatic ethnic transformation, and their heterogeneity in
terms of ethnic and economic composition. These places were visited in a preliminary
survey, from which the four final communities were selected. This preliminary survey
involved observation of the communities, and informal discussions with city officials and
local residents.

The four selected communities were similar in terms of their agricultural base
(citrus), their pOpulation size (between 5000 and 10,000), and their geographical location.
However, they each differed from each other in specific ways. One community was
predominantly Non-Latino white, with only a small percentage of foreign-born residents.
The others were predominantly Latino. One place was an unincorporated area, while the
others were incorporated cities. One city had a very active pro-Hispanic city government,
while the other places did not. The remaining community had a mixed Anglo-Hispanic city
government, despite an overwhelmingly Hispanic population base. Interviews were also
conducted with residents of neighboring communities that were found to be socially and
economically tied to the communities under study. While conducting the interviews I lived
in one of those neighboring communities, Reedley, a community that is ethnically about
half non—Latino white and half Latino, but in which non-Hispanic whites hold most

political and economic power.

 

comp
andth
techni
contat
eomn
ouner
terer

01‘ \l‘ht

unden
eeono:
useda
econor
flhgrat
ZtAre
Caphal
Ofresh
factors
Ways f
COmm]
Enghd
[€8an
the in“

OnlhOE

ana

65

A total of 54 formal interviews and focus groups (85 total respondents) were
completed with government officials, school principals, business owners, farm workers,
and other local residents in each place. Respondents were selected through a variety of
techniques. City officials, school principals, and chamber of commerce members were
contacted through their place of employment. To obtain representation of specific types of
community members (e. g., farmworkers, young adults, Filipinos, foreign-born business
owners), some respondents were recommended by other respondents or by people who
were not formally interviewed. Others were approached directly without prior knowledge
of who they were beyond their visible characteristics.

The questionnaire used in the study was designed to provide an in-depth
understanding of the forces underlying population growth and decline, and the
economic well-bein g of the communities under study. The following questions were
used as a basis for the interview: 1) How important are jobs, the community
economic base, ethnic conflict, social capital, and discrimination in determining
migration patterns, namely, peoples' willingness to stay where they are or to move?
2) Are newcomers and established residents forming new forms of positive "social
capital"? 3) What are peoples' perceptions of immigrants, the changing composition
of residents, and the quality of life in their community? To what degree are these
factors important in the residents' feelings towards their community? 4) In what
ways have the employment structure, the human, social and financial capital in the
community, and ethnic composition affected local community conditions? The
English version of the interview schedule is presented in Appendix E. While all
respondents were asked all of the interview questions, they were also allowed to lead
the interview into areas not broached in the questionnaire, and to focus the discussion
on those issues that they felt were most important in their community.

Observational and second-hand data were also collected. Observational data

was gathered through extensive, detailed recording of descriptions of people and

 

 

[laces
when
well a
rnean:
were.

thetn

m

Corbi

categt

They
VVooC
inforr
altar
Exete
Cutler

dlSpla

34 See
ObServ

66
places encountered while living in the region of study. Rich, detailed notes were
taken to reduce bias and unfounded conclusions about the events being recorded, as
well as to record information which might have meaning at a later time even if not
meaningful in the moment of observation.34 Newspapers, pamphlets, and flyers
were also collected from each of the communities under study. Content relevant to

the trends under study were analyzed with the observational and interview data.

Data Analysis
Data analysis was done through the Grounded Theory approach (Strauss and

Corbin 1990). Theory is produced by coding the data, discovering major themes and
categories, re-conceptualizin g the data, and regrouping it according to those
categories that arose through its examination. Conclusions are drawn from patterns
in responses which are confirmed through re-examination of the qualitative data in
conjunction with objective evidence. A list of codes used for qualitative data analysis

is displayed in Appendix F.

Places of Study

Each of the communities chosen for in—depth study are described briefly below.
They include Cutler and Orosi (referred to as Cutler/Orosi), Exeter, Orange Cove, and
Woodlake. Each of the places are described below. To protect the confidentiality of
informants, names of places are not included within quotes and descriptions of trends
within the Results and Methods chapters. Instead, places that are mostly Anglo, such as
Exeter and Reedley, are identified as Anglo towns. Places that are mostly Latino, such as
Cutler/Orosi, Orange Cove, and Woodlake, are identified as Mexican towns. Figure 23

displays the geographical location of the places of study within the state of California.

_¥

34 See Becker (1970) and Schatzman and Strauss (1973) for a description of the methology for recording
observational notes.

' gag—-4. 11.11.: _, .__'.1..,..,

 

Comm:
Amen.
MCXlC:
teIntor

an Ang

 

 

 

 

 

   
  
   

 

f" FRESNOCflNTY “x
1' }\ auw'A r "r
/ "V4? esno 03th l

‘th—l. o 051/ am a

 

- l s.
were" 'Woodtake
J .
, 1. .Exeter

i
l

 

   

 

 

 

' ‘ s.- W 1‘
- .1 l 9% IULAFEOOLNTY s
Sateratciseg l
‘ 8313.1“

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 23. Map of Communities

This study focuses on the current period of ethnic transformation in these
communities-from predominantly Anglo to predominantly Mexican and Mexican-
American. However, this current stage of changing ethnicity can also be thought of as a re-
Mexicanization of California. The transformation of these communities from Mexican
territory, to Anglo agricultural communities, to Latino towns is highlighted in this quote by

an Anglo resident of one of Orosi:

 

TheAng
have. T
This 111114
\‘ou've l
'Wrath Ill
settled it
people it
res. Wh
the Men
mmflw'
as the st
saw all t
Iotsofc

Littler/M
Altl

not viewed
one come
[01m Whllt
depression
residents. a
incorporate
(Cutler-Or.
Predomina
Cu

ll lS Still re
POpulatior
agllClllturt

different c

COmmttnit

Although

ltSidem8 .

has 1683 F

 

68

The Anglos and the Hispanics get along very well here. They always
have. There was a time when the Anglo was the larger group here.
This little town is called O-ro-sah or O-ro-see, depending on how long
you ’ve been here. O-ro-sah is because in the 30s, in the Grapes of
Wrath time, when people came here from the Midwest, the people that
settled this little town were from Missour—ah. And now recently, the
people who come in are Hispanic and they call it Oro-see, 0ro sz’, gold
yes. Where that comes from is this used to be Hispanic territory prior to
the Mexican war, and they came over the Sierra Nevadas and looked
into the valley and saw Califomia poppies that are bright gold. And so
as the story goes, these two conquistadors looked down the valley and
saw all the poppies and said “gold, yes. ” So the name’s gone through
lots of changes.

Cutler/Orosi

Although Cutler and Orosi are considered separate "places" by the census, they are
not viewed as separate places by most community residents. Therefore, they are studied as
one community for qualitative analysis. In the past, Cutler was considered the "Mexican"
town, while Orosi was more "Oakie" (populated with Anglo people who came during the
depression of the 19303). Distinctions between the two placesare now made only by older
residents, as Orosi is currently over 70 percent Latino. Neither Cutler nor Orosi are
incorporated, but at the time of this study they were considering incorporation as one place
(Cutler-Orosi). Cutler-Orosi is managed by the county government, which is

predominantly Anglo.

Cutler has experienced substantial population growth over the last decade, although
it is still relatively small in size. Almost all residents are Latino, and 41 percent of the
population was born outside the United States. Over half of the work force is employed in
agriculture, with the remainder of the work force somewhat evenly distributed between
different occupational categories. Cutler ranks in the bottom one percent of rural California
communities in per capita income. Thirty-eight percent of the population is in poverty.
Although Cutler has more agricultural employment and a greater percentage of Latino

residents than Orange cove (with similar age and foreign-born population distributions) it

has less poverty.

 

 

 

On
large incre
agricultura
degrees. pl
college de.
percentile.
theworkf
support. 0
Orosi.

lu
“larger“C
Orosi and
1991. M(
run loose
Church. }
Very old.
Manyofl
With an 61
Variety 01

Dinuba n

 

69

Orosi was one of the settings in the book The Grapes of Wrath. It has experienced
large increases in its pOpulation size and composition over the last decade, but no change in
agricultural employment. Only 36 percent of the adult residents of Orosi have high school
degrees, placing it at the seventh percentile in the state. Six percent of Orosi residents have
college degrees, placing Orosi slightly higher in terms of college graduates, at the 23rd
percentile. Although 31 percent of the work force is involved in agriculture, almost half of
the work force is involved in managerial/professional, technical/sales/administrative
support, or operator/laborer occupations. There is little service industry employment in
Orosi.

Just east of Orosi are two communities which are also considered part of the
“larger” Cutler/Orosi area: East Orosi and Yettem. Both are economically poorer than
Orosi and are mostly occupied by farrnworkers. East Orosi did not have sewers until
1991. Mobil homes are allowed in East Orosi, and some of the houses have chickens that

run loose on the yards. Yettem was settled by Armenians and still has a large Armenian

 

church. However, the residents of Yettem are now almost all Latino, and the housing is
very old. Economically, Cutler/Orosi are strongly tied to Dinuba which is located nearby.
Many of the community leaders of Cutler/Orosi actually live in Dinuba. Dinuba is larger
with an ethnically-mixed pOpulation. It has more employment, and a greater number and
variety of businesses and chain stores such as K-Mart. Cutler-Orosi is covered by the local

Dinuba newspaper.

Fuller
Populatior

Latino Po
Fanning, l
Persons in
High schc

Orosi

Populatior
Latino Po
Farming. l
Persons ir
High schc

 

'1
N.)
m
‘Y

I

Er
millionair
housing d
overlooki
Communi-
Latino cir
high scho
I:fflmersv

A'
”31 0f the
moving K
are integr
has not e)
Communi

mayor is j

 

70

Table 6. Description of Cutler and Orosi

 

 

 

 

 

CWer 1990 Change since i980
Population .................................... 4,450 +1 301
Latino Population ......................... 95% +6%
Farming, Forestry, and Fishing ...... 55% +14%
Persons in poverty ....................... 38% +13%

High school graduates ................... 29% —1.4%
Orosi 1990 Change since 1980
Population .................................... 5,486 +1410
Latino Population ........................ 72% +11%
Farming, Forestry, and Fishing ...... 38% 0%
Persons in poverty ...................... 32% +10%

High school graduates ................. 36% +1%

Exeter

Exeter is seen as a very prosperous community. At one time it had more
millionaires per capita than any other small city in the country. Several higher-priced
housing developments are being built in the city. Just outside of the city limits, on a hill

overlooking the community, is a very wealthy neighborhood. Exeter serves as a bedroom

 

community for professionals who work in Visalia. It is socially tied to a neighboring
Latino city, Farmersville, through a shared educational system. Farmersville children go to
high school in Exeter. At the time of this study, however, there were discussions about
Farmersville opening its own high school.

At one time, Exeter had a barrio where the farmworkers lived, separated from the
rest of the town by railroad tracks. The ban‘io no longer exists. Farmworkers started
moving to more rural places that were less expensive. The Latinos who live in Exeter now
are integrated with the Anglos, so that neighborhoods are not defined ethnically. Exeter
has not experienced the white emigration that has occurred in most neighboring
communities. The city staff and city council are predominantly Anglo. However, the

mayor is Latino, as are one staff member and one council member.

Er
nearby 10'
populatio:
percentag
of minors
working 2
residents
meSpani
Latinos.

norms for

\

Populatio
Latino P(
Fanning,
Persons i

 

mm

T
This grm
prOpOmC
leSldents
Percent C
is in POW
lll tel-ms

pelCCm (

7 l

Exeter has much less agricultural employment and fewer Latino residents than the
nearby towns of Lindsay, Farmersville, and Woodlake, although it is similar in overall
population size. It also has less poverty and more high school and college graduates. The
percentage of elderly population (18%) is greater than the state average, and the percentage
of minors is also larger than average. Therefore, less of the population of Exeter is of
working age (18 - 65) than is typical of rural California communities. The percent of
residents who are not foreign-born (92%) is also greater than the state average. Therefore,
the Spanish-origin population in Exeter consists mainly of second— and later-generation
Latinos. The occupational distribution of Exeter's work force is very similar to the state

norms for rural communities.

Table 7. Description of Exeter

 

 

 

 

1990 Change since 1980
Population .................................... 7276 +1670
Latino Population ........................ 26% +10%
Farming, Forestry, and Fishing ..... 11% +3%
Persons in poverty ...................... 22% +7%
High school graduates ................. 65% +10%

Orange Cove
The population of Orange Cove grew by over 255 percent between 1980 and 1990.

This growth was accompanied by a large increase in the poverty rate, and increases in the
pr0portion of the work force involved in agriculture, and in the proportion of Latino
residents. Almost 40 percent of the residents of Orange Cove are under age 18, almost 50
percent of the work force is involved in agriculture, and almost 50 percent of the population
is in poverty. Orange Cove is in the bottom one percent of all rural California communities
in terms of per capita income, and in the top one percent in terms of poverty. Forty-four

percent of the population was born outside of the United States, with 24 percent of the

 

populatic
the land :

C
advocate
greatly li
and city
perspecti
They are
and mou
a large L
Coye. C
eoHeger

State.

\

POpulatir
Latino F
I:éll’tttlng.
Persons

 

base of 1
ONE of ll
HOSpirai

and city

 

72
population immigrating since 1980. While Orange Cove is a low—income town, much of
the land around the city is owned by very wealthy individuals.

Orange Cove is regionally known for its very active mayor. He is a strong
advocate of Latino and farmworker issues, and his efforts have caused him to be both
greatly liked and greatly disliked by people with different political views. The city council
and city staff are entirely Hispanic, and most hold similar pro-farmworker, pro—Latino
perspectives. Orange Cove is socially tied to Reedley, a predominantly-Anglo community.
They are part of the same school district, which also includes unincorporated agricultural
and mountain areas. Reedley is known as a German Mennonite community, but it also has
a large Latino population. Reedley is considered much more prosperous than Orange
Cove. Orange Cove children go to high school in Reedley. Reedley also has a community

college that many Orange Cove children attend after high school, before going on to Fresno

 

 

 

 

State.

Table 8. Description of Orange Cove

1990 Change since 1980

Population .................................... 5,604 +4450
Latino Population ......................... 86% +14%
Farming, Forestry, and Fishing ..... 47% +14%
Persons in poverty ...................... 47% +26%
High school graduates ................. 26% -1%
Woodlake

Woodlake is slightly more isolated than the other communities. It is located at the
base of the foothills of Sequoia National Park, slightly down the road from Exeter. It is
one of the stops on the rodeo circuit, and its motto is “A Town with True Western
Hospitality.” Most of the stores downtown have a wooden Western motif. The city staff

and city council are ethnically mixed with approximately equal numbers Anglos and

 

lannos
ofiniah.
'V
educanor
mepopu
schoolgr
ennloyn'
occupant

nenspapr

Ix

Populanc
Lanno Pr
Finning,
Persons 1

 

l ....-u -_." "_‘“"k __.__-._.§A.& ~

73
Latinos. Latino and farmworker issues are not of primary concern among city staff and
officials, as they are in Orange Cove.

Woodlake has remained fairly constant over the last decade in terms of poverty and
education levels, with proportionally few high school graduates and almost 30 percent of
the population in poverty. However, Woodlake has slightly less poverty and more high
school graduates than nearby Farmersville, despite more dependence on agricultural
employment and a greater proportion of Latino residents. Farming is the predominant
occupation of the work force. Woodlake and Exeter are covered by the same local

newspaper. There also seem to be substantial social ties between Latinos in the two cities.

Table 9. Description of Woodlake

 

 

1990 Change since 1980—
Population .................................... 5,668 +1335
Latino Population ........................ 75 % +10%
Farming, Forestry, and Fishing ..... 36% +3%
Persons in poverty ....................... 28% +1%
High school graduates .................. 39% +1%

 

 

 

(
changing
relative i
in the etl
Transfor
factors b
“Foreigr
common
are leadi
“COmInt
bom P0}:
are km)“
conclude
model.

E
"On-Whit
the (leper
Pf€dicter

Clallly 0]

 

 

CHAPTER 4. QUANTITATIVE RESULTS

Question one asks why the ethnic composition of rural California communities is
changing, and what factors are leading to uneven ethnic transformation. Therefore, the
relative importance of growth and loss of non-Latino, Latino, and foreign-born population
in the ethnic transformation of places are explored in the first part of this chapter, “Ethnic
Transformation.” Subsequently, growth of each ethnic group is predicted with those
factors believed to lead to uneven ethnic transformation in the second part of this chapter
“Foreign-Born, Latino, and Non-Latino Population Growth.” Question two asks why
community socio—economic well-being is so strongly defined by ethnicity, and what factors
are leading to unequal economic development. Therefore, the third section of this chapter,
“Community Development,” examines the influence of non-Latino, Latino, and foreign-
bom population growth on community economic development, c0ntrolling for factors that
are known, or hypothesized, to affect community economic well-being. This chapter
concludes with a model that summarizes the results of these equations into one empirical
model.

Each of the models was also tested with a control for the percentage of non-Latino,
non-white residents. While this variable added slightly more explained variance in some of
the dependent variables, it did not alter the relationships between any of the predictor and
predicted variables. Therefore, it is not included in the models described in this section for

clarity of description. Models with this control variable are presented in Appendix G.

74

 

l
growth ll
composil
represent
composi'

l
the left-h
meet the
displayer
minimize
Thereforr
pOpulatic
Untransfr
each rypf
in non-L;
in Latino
nOII-Latii
Note that
ethnic tra
dngee ol
“On-Lam

affectlng

growth a,

16, [Esp

 

 

 

75

Ethnic Transformation

Table 10 displays a regression model predicting 1990 ethnic composition with
growth in foreign-born, Latino, and non-Latino population, controlling for 1980 ethnic
composition. By controlling 1980 ethnic composition, the pOpulation change variables
represent the degree to which each type of population affected changes in the ethnic
composition from 1980 to 1990.

The right-hand side of the table uses untransformed independent variables, while
the left-hand side displays a model in which the independent variables were transformed to
meet the assumptions of regression analysis (i.e., normal distributions). Both are
displayed to show that the results are similar. The model with the transformed variables
minimizes the impact of extreme cases, and is more representative of general conditions.
Therefore, the left-hand model is used for discussion of the relative impact of each
population group. Transformed variables are also used in each of the following models.
Untransformed coefficients are more easily interpreted to discern the actual mean impact of
each type of pOpulation growth on ethnic composition. For example, a one percent growth
in non-Latino population from 1980 to 1990 resulted, on average, in a .07 percent decline

in Latino concentration (B = -.07). From the opposite perspective, a 10 percent decline in

 

non-Latino population was associated with a growth of .7 percent in Latino concentration.
Note that if non-Latino population growth was unimportant in determining community
ethnic transformation from 1980 to 1990 (e. g., if most communities experienced the same
degree of non-Latino population loss), this figure would have been much smaller. Instead,
non-Latino population growth was just as important as Latino population growth in
affecting ethnic transformation from 1980 to 1990.

The left-hand side of the model shows that Latino and non-Latino population
growth accounts for changing ethnic composition at about equal rates (Betas = .15 and
-.16, respectively). Growth in foreign-born population is a much weaker predictor (Beta =

.05). Places that experienced more growth in non-Latinos experienced less growth in the

 

percentag
Latinos e
is true of
consists r
calculate
percentag
coefficiet

the total '

Predict
Percenta
POP
Percenta
P0P
Percenra
P0P
Percent ]
Percent l
(Constar
Squa

 

76
percentage of population that is Latino, and places that experienced more loss of non-
Latinos experienced more growth in the percent of population that is Latino. The opposite
is true of Latino and foreign-born population growth. While Latino pOpulation growth
consists partially of foreign-born population growth, the total influence of both can not be
calculated by simply adding the two beta values. Excluding the variable representing
percentage growth in foreign-born population increases the Latino population growth

coefficient slightly, to a Beta of .17, while having little impact on the other coefficients or

the total variance explained.

Table 10. Regression Models of 1990 Ethnic Composition

 

 

Model with Model with
N ormally- Untransformed
Distributed Variables
(Transformed)
Variables
Predictor B Beta Sig _l_3_ Beta S_ig
Percentage growth in foreign-born .356 .052 .000 .015 .070 .000
population, 1980 - 1990 _
Percentage growth in Latino .910 .150 .000 ' - .021 .1 19 .000
population, 1980 - 1990
Percentage growth in non-Latino -1.82 -. 157 .000 -.070 -. 133 .000
population, 1980 - 1990
Percent Latino, 1980 1.22 1.10 .000 1.24 1.11 .000
Percent Latino - squared -.005 -.184 .000 -.005 -. 176 .000
(Constant) - 29.9 .000 27.4 .000
R-Square . 99 . 98
Adjusted R-Square . 9 8 . 9 8

 

 

Foreign-Born, Latino and Non-Latino Population Growth
If non-Latino, Latino, and foreign—bom population growth each contributed to the

ethnic transformation of places from 1980 to 1990, the question arises as to why
communities experienced varying degrees of such population growth. Tables 11 through

13 show the results of regression equations predicting the growth of foreign-born, Latino,

 

 

and non?
hypothes
dmmmr
table. M
In each c

that expl:

Growth i

*

F
significar
growth it
causatior
construct
itself that

l
PTOfit, lal
Growth 1
were not
amount c

SClllCmer

35 In each .

OWCVer‘ l
Cases had 2
RemOVal c

C SlZe or
extreme C3
OVBI [he d6
Sim Clly a
Lalinos du
lone City r
predlCling
PPPUlation
leSlduals ll

77
and non-Latino pOpulation from 1980 - 1990.35 In each table the complete model, with all
hypothesized predictors, is presented on the left. A reduced model with only predictors
significant at p<.05 is displayed on the right. These predictors are highlighted within each
table. Multicollinearity was low in the reduced models. All VIF values were at or under 2.
In each case the variance explained (Adjusted R2) by the reduced models is equivalent to

that explained by the complete models, and the SIOpes of the predictors remain similar.

Growth in Foreign-Born Population

Few of the hypothesized causes of in foreign-born population growth are
significant, and little variance is explained (Adjusted R2 = .15). The strongest predictor is
growth in housing units (beta = .290). This strong relationship may exist because of dual
causation -- housing attracts population growth and population growth stimulates housing
construction. However, there is strong qualitative evidence to suggest that it is housing
itself that attracts population.

Two other predictors were also significant. Places that experienced a shift to high-
profit, labor—intensive agriculture showed larger growth in foreign-born population.
Growth in industrial-type farming and growth in the annual county payroll to hired labor
were not associated with growth in foreign—born residents. Therefore, it was not the
amount of agricultural employment, but the type of employment, that affected immigrant

settlement.

 

35 In each of these equations there were several cases with extreme residuals (i.e., standardized residual >l4l).
However, no case exerted extreme influence, as all Cook’s Distance scores were below 1. Each of these
cases had a unique characteristic that caused it to be less well-represented by the regression equation.
Removal of these cases causes the variance explained to rise slightly, but it does not substantially change
the size or significance of the model coefficients. Therefore, all cases were retained for all analyses. These
extreme cases are as follows: King’s Beach experienced extremely high growth in foreign-born population
over the decade, resulting in an extreme residual for the model predicting foreign-born population growth.
Sun City and Frazier Park had very few Latino residents in 1980, but experienced enormous growth in
Latinos during the decade, resulting in extreme residuals for the model predicting Latino pOpulation growth.
lone City has a large proportion of non-Latino non-whites, and so is not well represented by the model
predicting non-Latino population growth. Mecca and Parlier experienced extreme losses in non-Latino
pOpulation over the decade, resulting in almost no non-Latino residents by 1990, and so have extreme
residuals in the model predicting non-Latino population gTOWth'

 

 

populati

contrary
increase
inunigra
establisl
resident:
Therefor
seen as 2

(
growth 1
to foreig
1980 M
lmntigra
Show grf
The thin
between
foreign.t
bOrn pOp
larger pe
foreigni
in 1980.

 

78
The final variable that showed a significant relationship with growth in foreign-born

population was the growth in the percentage of Latinos who are children. However,

 

contrary to the proposed relationship, places in which the ratio of children to adults
increased showed smaller growth of foreign-born population. This suggests that
immigrants who are settling in rural communities are more likely to be adults than are
established residents. Despite an increase in family reunification with IRCA, foreign—bom
residents in rural California are more likely to be adults than are native residents.
Therefore, this variable (growth in the percentage of Latinos who are children) should be
seen as an outcome rather than a predictor variable.

Other employment conditions (growth in jobs, wages, etc.) were not related to

 

growth in foreign-born population. As expected, size of place in 1980 was also unrelated
to foreign-born population growth. The percentage of foreign—bom/Latino residents in
1980 was also not associated with growth in immigration. Prior studies have shown that
immigration is network-driven, so that places with larger foreign—bom populations should
show greater growth in foreign born population. This does not contradict these studies.
The third table in Appendix B shows that there is a very strong correlation (r = .59)
between the percentage of the population that was Latino in 1980 and the growth of
foreign—bom population in absolute numbers. However, the percentage M in foreign—
bom population is independent of the initial size of the population. On average, places with
larger percentages of foreign-born residents in 1980 showed similar percentage gains in
foreign~bom population as did places that had smaller percentages of foreign—bum residents

in 1980.

Ta'

Mia!
Restrucr
Restruco
Growth
Gmwm
Growth :
1980 per
Housing
Growth
Housing
Vacancy
Geograp
Populati
Growth i
Percenta
(Constar
R-squa;
Adj. R.

 

Growth j
l
is explair
18 left Un.
to be the
gT0Wth.
glOWIll ir
Popularic
dlSCUSSec
growth it
p0lllllzttic
Other W01

 

 

 

79
Table 11. Regression Models of Foreign Born Population Growth (1980-1990)

 

 

 

 

. , _ ' ; ' . Complete Mad?! ’ Reduced Model
Predictor B Beta §_ig B Beta Big
Restructuring 1 - more large scale .006 .016 .823
Restructuring 2 - intensification .576 .144 .016 .635 .159 .005
Growth in wages to hired labor .016 .010 .885
Growth in per worker wages .058 .183 .013 .022 .069 .212
Growth in employment -.022 -. 135 .065
1980 per worker wages .000 .023 .693
Housing costs, 1980 -.008 -.148 .058
Growth in housing costs -.019 -.040 .555
Housing growth * .046 .355 .000 .038 .290 .000
Vacancy rate, 1980 .247 .085 .187
Geographic area .026 .003 .968
Population, 1980 .000 . .058 .346
Growth in % children among Latinos -.042 -.168 .004 -.039 -.158 .005
Percentage Latino/Foreign-Born, 1980 -.007 -.045 .537
(Constant) 11.4 .002 10.9 .000
R-square '1 . ~ g .19 T. i .16

. Adi. R-Square , . ,. 15 f .15

 

 

Growth in Latino Population

Table 12 displays equations predicting growth in Latino population. More variance
is explained in Latino population growth than in foreign-born population growth, but much
is left unexplained by this model (Adjusted R2 = .37). Two demographic variables prove
to be the most important predictors. The strongest predictor is foreign-born population
growth. Places that experienced more growth in foreign-born population experienced more
growth in Latino population. Controlling for foreign-born population growth, Latino
population growth was smaller in places that had larger percentages of Latinos in 1980. As
discussed above, this does not mean that places with more Latinos in 1980 experienced less
growth in absolute numbers of Latinos. However, the W growth in Latino
population was smaller in places that had larger percentages of Latinos to begin with. In
other words, Latino population grew at faster rates in places with that were ethnically less

Latino (more Anglo) in 1980 than in places that were ethnically more Latino.

 

in place
profit. 1
higher I
wealthi

popular

Mt
Restruc
Restruc
Growth
Gmwd
Growth
1980 pt
Housin
Gmwm
Housin
Vacanc
Geogra
POpulat
Growth
Percent
Growrh
(Consta

'Squr

 

am

Unlike '
explalni
0ffl0n€

Were m.

 

80
As with foreign-born population growth, Latino population grew to a larger extent
in places that experienced more growth in housing units and in areas that shifted to hi gh—
profit, labor-intensive agriculture. Latino population growth could not be attributed to
higher birth rates (more children), or to labor market changes. Places that were bigger or
wealthier in 1980 were also normore likely to have experienced growth in Latino

population.

Table 12. Regression Models of Latino Population Growth (1980-1990)

 

 

Complete Model Reduced Model
Predictor B Beta fig B Beta Sig
Restructuring l - more large scale ~.012 -.027 .650
Restructuring 2 - intensification .657 .146 .005 .684 .151 .003
Growth in wages to hired labor -.037 -.021 .731
Growth in per worker wages .014 .040 .526
Growth in employment .007 .034 .559
1980 per worker wages .000 .021 .675
Housing costs, 1980 —.009 -.152 .026 -.006 -. 109 .053
Growth in housing costs .001 .003 .963
Housing growth .050 .339 .000 .047 .318 .000
Vacancy rate, 1980 .266 .081 .145
Geographic area —.261 -.025 .681
Population, 1980 .000 .045 .396 ~
Growth in % children among Latinos .019 .068 .178
Percentage Latino/Foreign—Born, 1980 ~.052 -.282 .000 —.057 -.311 .000
Growth in foreign—bom population .409 .362 .000 .412 .860 .000
(Constant) , 9.33 .009 9.3 .000
R-square . 40 . 3 8
Adjusted R-square .37 .37

 

Growth in Non-Latino Population

Table 13 displays regression equations predicting non-Latino population growth.
Unlike Latino or foreign—born population growth, most of the variance in this measure was
explained by the model (Adjusted R2 = .79). Housing growth was the strongest predictor
of non—Latino population growth. However, unlike Latinos and immigrants, non-Latinos

were more likely to move to places in which the cost of housing also rose. This is likely a

 

 

reciproc
At the s
Howevr
decisior

income

signific
larger r:

perspec
Latino :

unrelatr
t’ariablr
popular
growth

Ofchilc

 

 

81
reciprocal effect -- places with more demand for housing showed a rise in housing costs.
At the same time, places that lost non-Latino population saw a decline in housing costs.
However, qualitative interviews also suggested that white non-Latinos made settlement
decisions based on housing availability, and were especially attracted to places with hi gher-
income housing.

Outside of housing variables, community ethnicity in 1980 was the only other
significant predictor of non-Latino population growth. Non-Latino population grew at
larger rates in places that were ethnically less Latino in 1980. From the opposite
perspective, non-Latino population loss was greatest in places that were ethnically more
Latino in 1980.

Unlike Latino and foreign-born population growth, agricultural restructuring was
unrelated to growth in non-Latino population. Furthermore, none of the industrial
variables (wage growth, job growth) significantly predicted growth in non-Latino
population. The 1980 population and geographic size of places were also unrelated to
growth in non-Latino population, as was the variable representing growth in the percentage

of children among non-Latinos.

 

 

 

Eudit‘
Reuruc
Restruc
Growth
Growth
Growth
1980 pt
Housin
Gmwm
Housin
Vacanc
Geogra
Popular
Gmwm
Percent
Growth
(Constz
lliSqtr
m

 

from 1'
P€0ple
lOb gro
Table i

eCOnor
lll fore
both pl

enhanr

3 .
6 Rcsrr

82

Table 13. Regression Models of Non-Latino Population Growth (1980-1990)

 

 

Complete Model Reduced Model

 

 

Predictor B Beta fig B Beta S_ig
Restructuring 1 - more large scale .000 .004 .908

Restructuring 2 - intensification .026 .01 1 .713

Growth in wages to hired labor .007 .008 .820

Growth in per worker wages .005 .027 .460

Growth in employment -.002 -.017 .648

1980 per worker wages —.000 —.008 .790

Housing costs, 1980 -.003 -.086 .031 -.002 -.081 .017
Growth in housing costs .022 .078 .022 .027 .095 .001
Housing growth .062 .796 .000 .062 .808 .000
Vacancy rate, 1980 .114 .066 .043 .115 .066 .027
Geographic area .135 .025 .487

Population, 1980 .000 .045 .153

Growth in % children among N—Ls .023 .052 .151

Percentage Latino/Foreign-Bom, 1980 -.027 —.282 .000 -.029 -.302 .000
Growth in foreign—bom population .01 1 .020 .541

(Constant) 6.40 .000

R-Square .80 .79
Adjusted R-Square . 7 8 . 7 9

 

Community Development

Table 14 displays regression models predicting overall community development
from 1980 to 1990.36 Community development is defined in terms of the attributes of
people rather than places (i.e., income, poverty, wealth, and education levels, rather than
job growth and city revenues). As with Tables 11 through 13, multicollinearity is low in
Table 14. All VIF levels are below 2.

As expected, places with higher wage and job growth showed significantly higher
econorrric development. However, the effects of these variables were moderated by growth
in foreign-born population. Places that showed growth in both employment and foreign—
bom population experienced the highest degree of economic development. Immigration

enhanced the positive impacts of job growth on economic development, while job growth

 

36 Residuals from the regression were normally distributed, without extreme or influential values.

 

 

 

reduced
places t
benefic:

the neg:

econon
wage g.
less ecc

erperie

Places :
educan
the pen

develol

develol

Childre:

83
reduced the negative effects of immigration. The opposite was true of wage growth. In
places that experienced both immigration and wage growth, immigration reduced the
beneficial effects of wage growth on economic development, while wage growth enhanced
the negative effects of immigration.

Foreign-bom and non-Latino population growth were each significant predictors of
economic development, while Latino population growth was not. Controlling for job and
wage growth, places that experienced more foreign-born population growth experienced
less economic development. Places that experienced more growth in non-Latinos
experienced more economic development.

Human capital possession was the strongest predictor of economic development.

Places in which larger percentages of the adult population had at least a high school

 

education in 1980 showed much greater economic growth from 1980 to 1990. However,
the percentage of adults with college degrees in 1980 was unrelated to economic

development.

Agricultural restructuring and 1980 wage levels were unrelated to community

 

development, as were 1980 population and geographic size. Growth in the percentage of

children in the community was also unrelated to development.

 

Built
Restrur
Restrur
Per Wt
Empl0j
Mean I
Foreigi
Latino
Non-Ir
7c ngl
adul
‘7: Coll
198t
Geogra
Popula
Growtl
com
Interacr
Lati:
Interact
Bon
Interact
Non
Interact
Fore
Interact
Non
Interact
Fore
Interact
Non-
Interact
Fore
(Consta
“(in
m

 

84

Table 14. Regression Models of Conrrnunity Development (1980—1990)

 

 

 

Complete Model Reduced Model

Predictor B Beta S_ig B Beta S_ig
Restructuring 1 - more large scale —.002 -.019 .662
Restructuring 2 — intensification -.040 -.039 .410
Per Worker Wage Growth .016 .197 .000 .015 .185 .000
Employment Growth .007 .168 .003 .006 .144 .005
Mean Wages, 1980 .000 -.024 .572
Foreign-Born Population Growth —.061 -.239 .000 -.070 —.273 .000
Latino Population Growth -.009 -.038 .476
Non-Latino Population Growth .114 .261 .000 .092 .212 .000
% High School Graduates among .024 .428 .000 .023 .412 .000

adults, 1980
% College Graduates among adults, -.005 -.037 .607

1980
Geographic Area -.020 -.009 .871
Population, 1980 .000 -.030 .503
Growth in the % children in the -.022 -.085 .081

community
Interaction: Wage growth * Non- .003 .068 .249

 

Latino Growth
Interaction: Wage growth * Foreign- -.004 -. 172 .002 -.004 —. 187 .001
Born Population Growth

 

Interaction: Employment growth * —.001 -.062 .315
Non—Latino Population Growth
Interaction: Employment growth * .002 .181 .002 .002 .185 .001
Foreign-bom population Growth
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring-l * .003 .053 .261
N on-Latino Population Growth '
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring-1 * .002 .061 .166
Foreign—bom population Growth
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring-2 * .016 .038 .469
Non—Latino Population Growth
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring-2 * -.007 —.029 .545
Foreign-bom population Growth
(Constant) —1.22 .017 —l.38 .000
R-Square .55 .53
Adjusted R-Square . 5 2 - 5 2

 

commu
school

\‘ariablt
same d:
growth
predictr
populat
changir
propon

increas

levels r
the dec
relatior
ethnic l
Negati'

TCprese

COmmt
agricul
Popula
gTowrh
betwee

throng]

85

Regression models were also run predicting the various component measures of
community development. These are displayed in Appendix H. Only the percentage of high
school graduates (1980) was a significant predictor of all components. While the other
variables only significantly predicted some of the components, the relationships were in the
same direction as described above. Employment growth and immigration predicted income
growth, while wage growth and immigration predicted poverty. Wage growth also
predicted growth in the percentage of college graduates in the community. Non-Latino
population growth predicted unemployment. Income and poverty were affected by
changing proportions of children in the community. As children became a larger
proportion of the pOpulation, mean per capita income decreased while poverty levels

increased.

 

Summary Model of Quantitative Results

Figure 24 summarizes the quantitative results. For clarity, paths with significance

 

levels over .01 are not included. The relationship of foreign-born population growth with
the decline in the percentage of children in the community is not included, as this
relationship is causally reversed. The path from 1980 ethnic compOSition to changing
ethnic composition is not included since the 1980 level is a used as a control variable.
Negative paths are indicated by dashed lines. Arrows originating from two variables
represent interaction effects.

The model highlights the different causes of changing ethnic composition and
community development. While population growth and loss is affected by housing,
agricultural restructuring, and ethnic composition, economic development is affected by
population growth, job and wage growth, and human capital resources. Only population
growth affects both ethnic composition and community deve10pment. The correlation
between ethnic composition and economic deve10pment is not attributable to spurious paths

through industrial or demographic variables.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1980
Lafino/
8

_~

Groi
Housr

‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

86
r Employment Growth
I Wage Growth
\“
Agricultural Foreign-Bom _______ ‘3‘
lntensification Population Growth ~~~~~~~ x \ ~
3.33% 4 Growth in ‘ ‘ ‘= Community
Latino Population Percentage m
1980 Percent Growth mm ”WW
Latino/Foreign- ' ,’
Born ,’
Non-Latino
Growth in Population Growth
Housing Costs 0 . . ——' positive path
A: Adu[l)ts wrth l-ngOSchool _____ _, negative path
egrees’ >—b interaction

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 24. Empirical Model

 

 

 

 

 

 

[roces
fionti
as des
ofque
ihaIUl
thesei
comm
miEn;

by the

ofinfl
as “M.
thh
Refere
0f the:
Conve:

Places

ECOno

- '..¢ wag.- .v“ . ' . ll“

 

CHAPTER 5. QUALITATIVE RESULTS

Qualitative data analysis complements the quantitative tests by contextualizing the
processes of ethnic transformation and economic development. Data for this analysis come
from interviews, focus groups, and informal observation of the agricultural communities,
as described in the Methods chapter. While interviews were structured along a standard set

of questions (see Appendix E), respondents were allowed to lead the interview to topics

 

that they felt were most important in describing their community. Relevant quotes from
these interviews are included within the text to show residents’ perspectives on their

community in their own words. Quotes from interviews done in Spanish are preceded by

 

an English translation. Translations are not literal, but instead convey the meaning intended
by the speaker.

The names of specific places are not used within quotes to protect the confidentiality
of informants. Instead, Cutler/Orosi, Orange Cove, and Woodlake are simply referred to
as “Mexican towns.” Exeter and Reedley are referred to as “Anglo towns.” Places in
which neither ethnic group is dominant are described as “mixed-ethnicity” communities.
References to places as “Mexican” or “Anglo” towns does not imply that all of the residents
of these places are Mexican-origin or Non-Hispanic white. The terms are used to easily
convey to the reader the dominant ethnicity of the place. The ethnic composition of all
places is, of course, mixed.

This chapter is divided into three sections. The first, “Patterns in Ethnicity and
Economics,” conveys geographic, economic, social, and political patterns within the
communities under study. These patterns give insight into the horizontal and lateral social

capital that exists in the communities under study. Quantitative analyses were unable to

87

 

 

expki
devch
nnwc
Thns
conur
secho
ofsuu
which
movir
The h

Winch

byeir
conun-
conun'
theset
houses

SlllTou-

IOCah,
”Ponis
the eth

88

explore the impact of social capital on community ethnic transformation and economic
development. However, qualitative analysis reveals important effects of community social
networks, and lack of networks, on both ethnic transformation and economic development.
This section provides a basic description of the networks and the social gaps within these
communities to serve as a base for describing the effects of social capital in the subsequent
sections. Each of the following sections in this chapter focus on one of the two questions
of study. The section entitled “Ethnic Transformation” explains the processes through
which the ethnic composition of communities is shifting-why non-Latino whites are
moving out of Latino communities, and how Latinos are reacting to those same conditions.
The final section, “Ethnicity and Economic Development,” examines the processes through

which ethnic transformation leads to reduced economic development.

Patterns in Ethnicity and Economics

Geographic Patterns in the Ethnic and Economic Composition of Places

Geographically, places in rural California are becoming increasingly differentiated
by ethnicity and economic status. Two ethnically- and economically—distinct types of
communities exist: Mexican towns and Anglo/mixed places. These two types of
communities often exist right next to each other, and yet they are very distinct. Around
these towns is agricultural land, “ranch areas,” where people live on farms and in secluded
houses. There are also remote groups of farmworker housing and Anglo settlements in the
surrounding rural and mountain areas.

Mexican towns are almost completely Latino. They are called “Mexican towns” by
locals, and when you ask people to describe the community the first thing they remark
upon is the fact that it is a Hispanic community. Most residents of Mexican towns view
the ethnic composition as a positive aspect, noting that Latinos in other places have less

voice in local government and more conflict and prejudice due to ethnic differences:

 

 

 

Howe‘
econor
that in
agn'cul
[( l
ma
cor
chi
ca.
cor
mil
ba.
es

Pr0p0r
33 “nic
places
i0Wns,
HlSpan
See the
ethnic l

is (

Hit

trite
Ant

 

 

89

The Hispanic population is not as large [in Anglo town ], although it is
quite significant. But yet, the Hispanic community [in Anglo town]
hasn’t yet been able to assume its rights, assume a leadership position.
And there are Hispanic community members who have gotten involved
on the school board, on the council, but I think they tend to, even
thought the Hispanic community has put them there, I think many times
they tend to forget and not vote along those lines. When you sit on a
board or council and you know all of your colleagues are for
Proposition 187, it takes a strong individual to say ‘yeah you’re for it,
I ’m against it’ (Male Latino Mexican town resident).

However, residents of Mexican towns also note that their community is much poorer
economically than other places. They attribute the economic status of their town to the fact
that large numbers of residents are farmworkers, and to the reliance of the community on
agriculture:

[ ( This town) is characterized by Hispanic families, to start. We ’re the
majority here in the community, of migrant Hispanic families, of
course, and those that work here on the farms. Basically, the
characteristic of this population of (this town) is low income. ] Se
caractariza (esta comunidad) ma’s bien para familia hispana, para
comenzar. Somos ma yorr’a aqui in la comunidad, de families hispanas
migratorias, logico, y que aqui trabajan en el campo. Asi que
basicamente, la caracten’stica de esta poblacio’n de (esta comunidad)
es low income (female Latina resident).

 

 

Anglo/mixed places are mostly non-Latino white, although. most have a substantial
proportion of Latino residents. They are not called “Anglo towns,” but are often referred to
as “nice places to live.” These places tend to be wealthier and are identified as wealthier
places by their residents and by peOple in the surrounding areas. As with the Mexican
towns, residents of Anglo places immediately identify their community as less
Hispanic/more Anglo than neighboring places. Also, as in the Mexican towns, residents
see the ethnicity of their community as a positive aspect. Some people take pride in their
ethnic diversity compared to homogenous Mexican towns:

There’s a mixture of culture in (the Anglo community) more than there
is (in this Mexican town). Because (this Mexican town is) over 80%
Hispanic, and as far as my son, my husband and I would like my son to

interact with lots of difierent races -- Chinese to Black to Mexican,
Anglo (Female Anglo town resident).

 

There
most 1
power
small
than a
They .

the C0

These
areas.
alid dt

anti-g

37 fig.
[OWnI

90

However, most residents consider the large proportion of non-Latino whites to be integral
to the quality of life of their community. They feel that it is because their town has more
Anglos that it is more prosperous than surrounding places:

(This) is one of the few communities that hasn’t had a lot of whites,

Anglos, moving out. Where you find large concentrations of

minorities, historically, you ’11 find it’s economically not as good, and

that influences your community. That doesn’t mean those people aren’t

as concerned, they just don’t have the base. They’re just struggling for

survival. And here, they’re not faced with that, so they’re thinking,

how do we make it better? Whereas the poor person, hey, I’ve got to

worry about survival (Anglo Male Anglo town resident ).

Surrounding the cities and towns are farmland and scattered homes (ranches).
There is a higher status associated With living in the ranch areas, compared to the towns,
most likely because ranchers have traditionally held most of the political and economic
power in these communities. Not all places called ranches are large farms, but might be
small farms or country houses. People who live on ranches are more likely to be Anglo
than are peOple who live in town. Some Mexican farmworkers live in the country as well.
They either live on the ranches on which they work, or in older housing scattered around
the countryside.37
There are also settlements of people in the mountains that surround the valley.

These people are linked to the agricultural communities by school districts and shopping
areas. Valley residents call peOple who live in these areas “mountain people” or “cowboys”

and describe them as people who want to get away from the world, including those with

anti-govemment sentiments. Mountain residents are more likely to be Anglo.

 

37 e.g., housing built for farmworkers in the 19403, older trailer parks in the country or on the edge of a
town.

_.. g...

 

 

 

are hi
mostl

Chang

has al
such :
plums

areas

emplt
Entire

inluflt

 

91
Economic Patterns in Mexican Towns
We have year-round work. Oranges and veggies are more or less
winter crops. Pruning orchards and cutting vines for grapes in the
spring, then avocados, one crop after another. As far as industrial
work , all are food processing plants-- the winery, orange juice
processing, the burrito plant, lumber. All industry is tied to agriculture
(Male, Latino Mexican town resident).

All of the Mexican towns and Anglo/mixed communities in the San Joaquin valley
are highly dependent upon agriculture. Traditionally, areas west of Interstate 99 have held
mostly corporate farms while areas east of Interstate 99 held more family farms. This has
changed slightly over the last few decades so that there is now a mix of smaller family

farms and larger corporate farms on the east side, where this study was conducted. There

has also been a shift from yearly row crops, such as tomatoes, to semi-permanent crops,

 

such as oranges. Most of the farms in the area produce tree fruit -- oranges, lemons,
plums, apricots, and olives. There are also fields of grapes and large dairy farms. In the
areas under study citrus is the dominant crop, and most of the packing houses process
oranges. The varieties of oranges and other crops allow for year-round work on farms.

[ Ten years ago there were less people. Back then they would tell us
“pick another box, ” and they would bring us all beers for refreshment.
Now they say “go away. ” It’s very difi‘erent. The reason~is that in
Mexico and in other parts, with such diflicult economic situations, many
of us come here, and that’s making the situation difi‘icult (Male Latino
Mexican town resident). Hace 10 afios, habr’a menos gente. Entonces,
nos decr’an “pis ca otra caja, ” y trat’a todas cervezas para que se
refrescara. Ahora dicen “ya, vete. ” Es bien diferente. Por Ia razo’n
que en Mexico y en otras partes, con las situaciones economicas tan
dificiles, nos venimos muchos para venir por aca’, y asi es poniendo la
situacion difr’cil.

 

Our unemployment is like 30 percent, so what we really need are jobs.
Like for the last three days it’s rained. No one ’s worked (Female Latina
Mexican town resident).
While farmwork can be found throughout most of the year, it is not dependable
employment. Nobody works while it rains. If there is a freeze, nobody works for the

entire season, The same is true of packing house work, although it is more stable. On-job

injuries are also common among farmworkers. While some farmworkers continue to work

 

 

well i
hazart
harde
increz
comp
the la

incret

for pa
W of

and m

 

92

well into old age, many become injured so they cannot work, either through accidents or
hazardous working conditions. Furthermore, most workers complain that it is becoming
harder to find steady work and that the amount of work has declined substantially due to
increasing competition from increasing immigration. They also blame increasing
competition for the stagnant wages for farm labor, noting that pay has not increased over
the last several decades despite large increases in the cost of living. This, in turn, has
increased poverty within farmworker communities:

[ ( This town) has changed in terms of poverty. Because the things that

people need to live have gone up in price, but the salary continues being

the same for thirty years, when I arrived. This is a very notorious

change in that many, many more families are more needy now than

before. ] (Esta comunidad) Ha cambiado en pobreza, esto sf. Porque

las cosas para subsistir la persona han augmentado de precio, pero el

salario sigue siendo el mismo desde 30 afios, cuando yo Ilequé.

Entonces, esto es un cambio muy notorio en que hay muchas, muchas

ma’s families ma’s necesarias ahora que anteriormente (Female Latina

Mexican town resident).

Farrnwork is difficult, and it cannot supply a stable income because of its
dependence on volatile factors such as weather and agricultural markets. Therefore, it is
seen as undesirable by U.S.-born or raised residents. Second and later generation children
rarely become farmworkers. They might, however, consider packing house work:

Right now they 're working IZ-hour weekdays and 10 hours on
Saturday [in the packing house]. When we close in the summer they ’11
be ready for a vacation. (What do they do for pay when closed?) Some
will get unemployment, but many will go right into [picking] tree fruits.
That season starts when we shut down. This summer we ’11 be closed
for 3 months, but next year I can see us going for 10 months. If we
ever get so we stay open 1 1 months, many will just go on
unemployment and take a vacation for a month. After working so hard
they'll be ready for a vacation (Male Anglo packing plant manager).

Despite the seasonal nature of packing house jobs, and the low pay ($6 - $8/hour
for packers, slightly less for graders and stackers, and more for forklift drivers) there is a

lot of competition for these jobs. Workers receive medical benefits, and work is steadier

and more desirable than work in the fields. However, there are few opportunities for

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advai

COHU

high

work
midd
Oiiht

they

Was

 

93

advancement. There are low-skill jobs on the line for women, and low-skill jobs stacking
and forklifting for men, and then there are high-skill management jobs (held by men). For
workers to move beyond a line supervisor, they would have to acquire additional training
in management. Jobs in packing houses are also increasingly being replaced through
mechanization. While growth in packing house employment is desired by most
communities to relieve unemployment, it is low-income employment that does not bring
high income into the community.

In field work there is also little room for advancement. However, some field
workers go into labor contracting to earn more money. Labor contractors serve as
middlemen between farmers and fieldworkers. They are often some of the richest members
of the community.

While all of the rural communities are dependent on agriculture, the Mexican towns
host the majority of the farmworker population. Most of the residents of Mexican towns
either work on farms throughout the region or in local fruit-packing houses. Farrnworkers
also live in Anglo communities, but they comprise a much smaller percentage of the
population: _

With Exeter, that tends to be where the farmers live. Woodlake is

where the workers live. The quality of (Woodlake) has sufiered as a
result (Male Anglo).

Social Patterns: Divisions Among Community Residents

Central California more so than elsewhere plays up ethnicity. T here ’s
more separation and bitterness. It’s not just Hispanic diflerences. It ’5
sad (Anglo male Anglo town resident).
Ethnicity plays a central part in descriptions of people and places in the valley.
When people refer to Reedley, they refer to it as a German Mennonite community. When

they talk of dairy farming, they refer to the Swedish, Dutch and Portuguese farmers. As I

was interviewing I was surprised at the number of times people asked me what my last

 

 

 

 

 

 

name

halt

confl
mep
(gang

Cenh

gnu;
it is p
netw<
ch.’
differ
Us.

 

 

94
name was, and what kind of name it is. Some people seemed to need this information to
feel comfortable when interacting with me.
Despite this emphasis on ethnicity, most people interviewed said that there is little
conflict based on ethnicity or national origin in their community, outside of the schools and
the political arena. All communities noted problems with teenage gangs called norten'os

(gangs of children born in the US.) and sudeiios (gangs of children born in Mexico or

 

Central America) who fight against each other. All places also have a history of minor or
major political conflicts that have divided people along ethnic lines. But in general, these
conflicts are seen as existing outside of everyday community life. Many people highlight
the lack of ethnic conflict as one of the advantages of their community, especially compared

to larger cities where racial/ethnic conflict is conspicuous:

 

[The people of this town are friendly, cooperative. You can see this
when there ’s a family in trouble. People from Michoacan, Mexicans
from all the states get together, including the Mexican-Americans and
one or another American (Anglo) that also helps. ] La gente de este
pueblo es amistosa, es cooperativa. Esto mira cuando hay una familia
en desgracia. Michoacanos, Mexicanos do todos estados se unen,
incluyendo los Mexico-Americanos, y un o otro americano que tambie’n
copera (female Latina Mexican town resident).

 

While few people feel that there are bad relations between ethnic or nationality
groups, most also say that there is little contact between them. In general, people claim that
it is profession and economics, rather than ethnicity, that most influences their social
networks. Business people interact with business people, farmworkers with farmworkers,
etc. This leads to separate networks among ethnic and nationality groups because of
differences in employment between Anglos and Latinos and between foreign-born and

U.S.-bom residents.38 And while person-to-person ethnic relations may be good in

38 e.g., “It’s not ethnic. Status, or economic level that families are in -- economic classes of families don't
get involved with others” (Male Latino resident of a mixed-ethnicity community). “Well, the CODfliCt
between like the people that came from Mexico is the languagc- Al‘d then the economics. They’re hard
working, struggling people. They don’t have time to socialize. Most of their time is involved in working
and taking care of their families. 80 that’s the main reason we don’t have interaction between, I’d say
levels of Hispanics, I’m not saying they’re higher or lower or whatever -- the Mexican Americans that were

 

 

95

general, both U.S.-born and foreign-born Latinos and Filipinos report feeling looked down
upon by some middle-class and Anglo residents.

It's a difficult adjustment going to (the High School in the Anglo town),

a difi‘erent environment. Kids' whole personality changes. It ’s hard

to get to know the other kids. They look down on you. You 've been

working hard, picking or working in the packing houses since you were

young, they haven 't. It's a different mentality (Female former Mexican

town resident).

The Hispanic people (in the Anglo town) have forgotten their roots.

And the white people look down on you (Female Latina worker in a
Mexican town).

Furthermore, although most people say that there is little conflict between groups,
three clear divisions among people exist in the minds of most residents. Through these
divisions people categorize others and create their own identity. The first division is
between recent immigrants and established residents. The second is between Latinos and
Anglos. While these two divisions are not openly discussed among adults and are
minimized in discussion of conflict, they are subtly implied in residents’ descriptions of
their community. These divisions show up most clearly in conflicts among children and in

the political arena.39 The third division between people is discussed more frequently and

 

with more passion than the first two, and seems to be the source of the most conflict.
However, this distinction is not clearly defined by any objective criteria and encompasses
only foreign-born individuals. It is between immigrants who contribute to society versus

those who take from it.

Recent Immi rants and Established Residents

[There are Mexicans, Salvadorans, Guatamalans, Texans. Many people
have come. Many stay. ] Hay mexicanos, salvadorefios, guatama/er’ios,

tejanos. Mucha iba. Mucha queda (Male Latino resident of a Mexican
town).

 

 

born here and are educated, well they’re so busy with their lives that they give more Of their time in terms
of civil activities” (Male Latino resident of a Mexican town).

39 As discussed above. there are conflicts between gangs of children, based on country of origin. In the
mixed/Anglo communities there are also conflicts between “cowboyS” (M810 children from the mountains)
and Latinos. Politically, there are conflicts which tend to Split people along ethnic and national-origin
lines, discussed below.

 

 

 

they
com
disti
of at
Hort
num
betvt
aliet
Kris
iron
lingt
Unit
peot

term

famil}
friend

 

96

Given that hired farrnwork is done almost exclusively by immigrants, it is clear that
they are an important population in agricultural California. While some people in Anglo
communities may see this group as being homogeneous, most people do not. Many
distinctions can be made among them -- such as country of origin, state of origin, or year
of arrival to the United States. Most recent immigrants are from Mexico (90%).
However, people are increasingly coming from Central America (7%), and a sizable
number of immigrants have come from Asia. People also recognize cultural differences
between the different states of Mexico. The state or country from which people have come
affects their social networks, and, therefore, their economic Opportunities (e.g., see
Krissman 1995). However, there does not seem to be strong antagonism towards people
from specific regions, other than complaints about certain cultural characteristics or
linguistic differences.40 It is recognized that foreign-born residents who have been in the
United States for more years have many advantages compared to recent immigrants. Some
people also complain that recent immigrants are different from previous generations in
terms of concern for their community and their dedication to work.

While these differences among foreign-born residents are recognized and
discussed, much stronger differentiation is made between recent immigrants and
established residents than among [different groups of immigrants. Recent immigrants are
perceived as a very different group from people born in the United States by all community
members, including recent immigrants themselves. U.S.-bom residents have higher levels
of education, higher incomes, and more stable positions in their communities than recent
immigrants. Foreign-born residents are also viewed as less legitimate community members
by established residents, regardless of legal status, especially by those without roots in

E

40 e.g., “You have the people that come from Monterrey Mexico, they’re very hard working people, so
that’s their main stride in life. Then you see the people that come from Michoacan, they’re very united,
family unity, a lot of that. But very seldom do you see all of them come together Some of my best
friends say ‘oooh, I hate Monterrey people because they’re so loud, and this and that.’ Well, now we have

 

 

 

 

 

[CCU

Mg

Amt

are r

lWO (

97
immigrant farrnwork (mostly Anglos). Political debates about the negative effects of
immigration, and the rights of documented and undocumented immigrants, reinforce the

recognized divisions between peOple based on national origin.

Anglos and Other U.S.-Bom People
Most of the U.S.-bom pOpulation (96%) is either Latino (mostly Mexican-

American) or non-Hispanic white (Anglo), although there are also some Asian-Americans
(mostly Filipino and Japanese). Anglos have traditionally held most of the political and
economic power in the agricultural communities, and, as with recent immigrants, they are
seen as a distinct group. Both U.S.-bom and foreign-born Latinos will frequently use
phrases such as “We, the Hispanics,” to distinguish differences between Latinos and
Anglos. Once again, most peOple attribute separate networks among Anglos and Latinos to
economic differences between the groups, although cultural and political differences are
also observed, as discussed later in this chapter:

You have a Hispanic community who, most of them, are oblivious to

individuals in the Anglo community, and vice-versa (Male Latino

Mexican town resident).

While economic differences may be of primary importance “in maintaining ethnic
divisions, these economic differences have their roots in the historical legacy of
discrimination against Mexicans in California. Most adult Mexican-Americans, especially
those who are older, have stories of direct discrimination that they encountered while
growing up. Many Latinos continue to feel discriminated against, and note large gaps in
economic and political power between Latinos and Anglos. There are continual battles for
greater Latino representation in political positions and social groups, and these battles
reinforce the ethnic divisions between people.

Because battles for Latino power are seen as contributing to ethnic tensions, they
are not uniformly supported by all Latinos. The social divisions based on national origin

#

two of them in our family, and the day that (one of them) doesn’t show up, the party lacks something”

 

 

 

hon
bdar
born
arm

tern

poht
35 Wt
thon
gore
cons
ofth
want
recer
peep
Wehz
rend.
noiq
sugg

Paya

 

98
(foreign- versus U.S.-born) and ethnicity (Latino versus Anglo) leave U.S.—bom Latinos
balancing between identification with U.S.-bom Anglos and identification with foreign-
bom Mexicans. This social position is seen in a positive light by some, allowing access to
a wider variety of social, political, and economic networks. However, it also causes

personal distress, especially among people with the most diverse social ties.41

“DesemirLL” Versus “Undeserving ” Immigrants

Finally, among both U.S.—bom Anglos and Latinos, regardless of their other
political views, there is a universal resentment that some immigrants receive services such
as welfare, unemployment and MediCal. Virtually all U.S.-born residents complain about
those immigrants who take advantage of the system, who crowd the schools and sap
government resources, and who incite crime, violence, and accidents with their
consumption of alcohol and drugs. This stands in clear contrast to the near-universal praise
of those immigrants who work harder than U.S.-bom people, take jobs that others don’t
want, and sustain the agricultural economy. Both positive and negative stereotypes of

recent immigrants are pervasive, and indicate a clear separation of newcomers as either

 

people who contribute to society or take from it. Even among people who recognize that
welfare abuse and crime are lower among foreign-born individuals than among native-bom
residents, there is a resentment that any immigrants are receiving benefits for which they do
not qualify, or committing crimes in the United States.42 Very few non-farmworkers
suggested that hardworking farmworkers might need financial assistance due to the low

pay and unstable nature of their work:

(Female Latina resident of a Mexican town). '

4‘ e.g., Such feelings come out in contradictory views or ambivalence on issues of immigration and ethnic
power, in comments about unease at not speaking Spanish or having a greater knowledge about Mexico, or
feeling uncomfortable as an ethnic minority or child of a farmworker in predominantly Anglo situations.

42 “Probably the majority was for (Proposition 187), about 80%. Because of the many crimes committed
by undocumented persons, and we have many people in prison that are illegal. It costs $25,000 each person
to put them in prison. (Is crime higher among undocumented immigrants?) Less crime is committed by
undocumented people. They don’t want to take the risk of being caught. Their priority is to wor ” (Male
Latino police officer).

 

 

incc
the)
subs

ther

natit
Amt

Well

 

 

99

These Mexican people have ideas. They're all on welfare, all of them.

. Someone needs to teach the Mexican people how to stop having
babies. They have no means of earning income except to have another
child and get more money. They get free medical services. The only
people who have insurance are the white people. The other day I ran
into a Mexican guy's car, and he just took ofi‘. Probably was illegal and
was afraid. They have multiple social security cards and when someone
asks them for one they just hand it to them. Where do they get them?
But I love my [undocumented Mexican cleaning woman] (Anglo Female
Anglo-town resident).

In contrast, most farmworkers discussed the difficulties of living on the unstable
income of field work and the need for such services for farmworker families. However,
they also went out of their way to state that they would never use government services or
subsidies. First generation immigrants are aware of the feelings of non-immigrants about
them. They are careful to let others know that they are not part of that group which is

taking anything from the government.

Political Patterns

While Anglos continue to be the most economically dominant residents in rural
California, Latinos have become the political leaders of Mexican towns. Latinos also hold
important political positions in Anglo/mixed places. Recent immigrants are less aware of
the political structure and often feel disenfranchised from local government. At the same
time, they are very aware of the effects of laws such as those promoting English-only in the
schools, and those restricting education and health care, for themselves and their families.

Political conflict sometimes arises around struggles for power based on ethnicity or
national-origin. However, political divisions are not based entirely on ethnic differences.
Among both Latinos and Anglos it is easy to find people with very conservative views as

well as peOple with very liberal views:

 

 

 

cont
poll
con:
incc
con:
mi
diift

goal

in

inter

Lati:
like]

pet);

busi

resic
bilin

neec‘

 

 

100

Most Anglos would take a look and say that (that town) is a mono-
cultural community now, 95 % Hispanic and they all think alike The
political thinking is probably more diverse than it is anywhere else in
Tulare county. You have the groups that are so far one way that it
almost borders on anarchy. That the whole American political process
is rotten to the core, discriminates, needs to be overthrown, all the way
over to the other spectrum. You ’ve got some of the most patriotic
believers in our democratic system, that would put most seventh
generation Anglos to shame with their patriotism. And I mean that
whole broad spectrum (Male Anglo county official).

Political differences also do not necessarily fall along party lines. The most heated
conflicts in some communities are within parties rather then between them. Instead,
political conflict emerges based on residents’ ways of looking at the world. One set of
conflicts arises based on whose needs are viewed as of primary concern: those of low-
income farmworkers, or those of middle-class business owners. The second set of
conflicts arises based on what is viewed as equality: treating everybody the same (the
melting pot perspective), or recognizing differences (the salad bowl perspective). These

different perspectives cause people to react differently to political conflicts even if the same

goals are desired.

F armworker Versus Business Interests

The greatest political conflict exists between what could be classified as “business
interests” -- those of wealthy and middle-class residents, including ranchers, and
“farmworker interests.” Some people characterize these differences as Anglo versus
Latino. Almost all farmworkers are Latino, and business people and farmers are more
likely to be Anglo. However, many people do not focus on ethnicity in these conflicts as
people with business interests are often Latino, and not all Anglos hold the views of
business people.

In general, “farmworker” interests include promoting programs for poorer
residents, such as low-income housing development, subsidies for water and bills, and
bilingual education and services. People with farmworker perspectives believe that the

needs of the poor must be of primary concern as this is the most vulnerable population.

 

 

 

 

The;
the ]
neet
emr
con
the -

for '

son
For
peo
“far
aha

m6]

pm
All;

gut

CqL
Ver
PIC

all(

43 i
inte
“CV

 

101

They also believe that aid to business interests will only result in greater inequality between
the poor and the rich. People with “business” interests are more likely to emphasize the
need for economic development, business subsidies, and tax reductions. They believe that
emphasis on the needs of the poor will only encourage more poor people to move to the
community. They believe that by helping business interests, employment will grow and
the economic well—being of the entire community will improve. This, in turn, will allow
for more funds for projects that benefit all community members.43

While these conflicts are not necessarily based on ethnicity or national origin, they
sometimes become identified as racial because of the ethnicity of most of their supporters.
For example, Cutler and Orosi are considering incorporating as one city. In Cutler/Orosi,
people ”with “business interests” are more likely to be anti-incorporation, while people with
“farmworker interests” are more likely to be pro-incorporation. Business interests are
afraid of taxation that might come with a government elected by poorer community
members, while farmworker interests hope that incorporation will allow them to compete
for grants for low-income housing. From an ethnic standpoint, incorporation would
probably result in greater political power among Latinos, and reduced power among
Anglos. Cutler/Orosi is currently managed by the predominantly Anglo county

government.

Melting Pot Versus Salad Bowl Perspectives

Political conflicts also emerge from contradictory views on what constitutes ethnic
equality. In popular terminology these opposing views could be classified as “melting pot”
versus “salad bowl.” People from both perspectives see themselves as not-prejudiced, and
promoting racial equality, while viewing peOple with the other perspective as prejudiced

and promoting racial discord.

43 People from the farmworker perspective note, however, that some people with business interests are only
interested 1n projects that help themselves and their friends, and that they fight the development/attraction of
new industries and businesses with which they would compete for labor, water, and markets.

 

 

 

 

 

and
The
The
and

pets

shm

diffi
0er
billr

 

102

Those who hold a melting pot perspective think everybody should be seen the same
and treated the same.44 They believe in emphasizing similarities rather than differences.45
They reject programs such as affirmative action and bilingual education as anti-Anglo.46
They also resent court actions and requests for equal representation on governing boards
and view bilingual services as being very costly for the community as a whole.47 This
perspective also tends to view Mexican-pride programs as divisive, as they believe peOple
should see themselves primarily as Americans.48

Those who hold a salad bowl perspective believe that only by recognizing
differences can equality come about. They fight for proportional representation of Latinos,
often through legal action.“9 They also promote services for Spanish-speakers, such as

bilingual education and bilingual staff in government offices, and view these services as

 

44 e.g., “I used to always say wouldn't it be nice if we could all be painted purple and there would be no
differences. But then it would be something else” (Male Anglo resident of an Anglo town).

45 e.g., “I like to say ‘Americans of Mexican Descent’ [rather than Mexican-Americans]” (Male Latino
businessman).

46 e. g., “The pendulum has turned. There’s more prejudice towards Anglos now because you have to have a
quota, you have to have a ratio" (Male Anglo Mexican town resident).

7 e. g., MAPA, a Mexican-American organization, sued one of the local hospitals for greater Hispanic
representation on the hospital board. This prompted resentment among many people because of the large
costs involved for the hospital. Bilingual education is disputed among many people because they believe
students should learn English as their first priority, and that the schools should not fund special programs
for non-English speakers.

43 In Woodlake, for example, in the 1970s, a group of teenagers painted a mural with images from Mexican
history as a means of promoting pride in Mexican culture. This caused a great uproar in the community,
and the city council put a court injunction to stop the mural, which was later defeated. The community was
divided about it, some seeing it as dividing the community (e.g., people should see themselves as American
rather than Mexican or Anglo), others seeing it as promoting pride among Mexican children.

49 “We’ve gone through the court system, filed suit against school districts, and have made some progress.
The first time that the parents filed, we were instrumental in making them aware of what was going on, we
had a program that had a bilingual component. Most of the board members were ranchers and they refused
to have m language introduced into the school system. We wanted to have bilingual education and they
didn’t want it. So they threw out a quarter of a million dollar program in order not to have Spanish
language introduced into the school program. Well, there’s a tremendous amount of peOple that have come
from Mexico and so those children needed to be educated. So the parents filed a class-action suit
against the school district and won. 80 we have bilingual education. We have bilingual aides. Everything
has just turned around. So then the second time, just recently, four years ago, another friend of mine
filed a class action suit against the school district because we wanted district elections instead of at-large
elections. We won the lawsuit, we have three Hispanics now in the school district. We have a
Hispanic principal, we have a Hispanic counselor, so to serve our people. We didn’t do it in a way that
we wanted to take over” (Female Latina Mexican town resident).

- «in -,

 

 

 

 

 

ne<

prc

etl

l'CS

an:

COl

am
WC
C01

30

ml
Ofr

 

 

103
necessary for equality among all residents.50 They believe that people should learn about
Mexican heritage and history to develop pride and counter stereotypes,S 1 and that by
promoting understanding of cultural differences relations will improve among different
ethnic groups.52

In general, Anglos tend to hold a melting pot perspective while foreign-born
residents hold a salad bowl perspective. U.S.-born Latinos are likely to hold both
perspectives simultaneously, and choose political allegiance with both or neither.

The two contradictory sets of political views, business vs. farmworker interests,
and melting pot versus salad bowl perspectives, cause the greatest amount of conflict in the
communities under study. This conflict has risen from the conflicting needs of the growing
immigrant-Latino population versus those of U.S.-born business—owners and ranchers,
and contradictory perspectives of how best to integrate the new population. In other
words, ethnic transformation itself intensifies political conflict. At the same time, growing

conflict fuels ethnic transformation through emigration of middle class and Anglo residents.

 

Social divisions between groups also prompt emigration, as does the existence of Anglo

 

50 e.g., [In the city council meetings translation iS also necessary, CV6" though there are Hispanic people
there. This is how the Anglos maintain their control. They want people to participate, but they don’t
accept a bilingual meeting. The Hispanic members of the council also don’t accept it if we want
translation. We have to sit in the back and gather around a person that interprets for us to understand what’s
going on. And 1 don’t see that as equality. I see it, it’s part of racism] “En las juntas de concilio también
hay que tener traduccion, aunque hay personas hispanas allr’. Es la manera en que controla e1 anglo. ..
Le gustan que uno participe, pero no aceptan que la junta sea bilingue. Los miembros de todo el consilio
que son hispano tampoco aceptan traducirla si queremos traduccion. Tenemos que sentamos atras y hacer un
grupito con una persona que nos interpreta para poder entenderlo. Y esto no lo miro como una i gualdad.

Lo miro, es parte de racismo” (Female Latina Mexican town resident).

51 e.g., ”Politics being what it is, you know people say ‘well, it shouldn’t be race motivated,’ or ‘there
shouldn’t be special interest groups,’ but even those who argue against special interest groups they
themselves are a special interest group. When I went to Buffalo, Geraldine Ferrarro was there when l
was there, they had a big thing there. And I knew then that those people are 80 pr 011d 0f their Italian
heritage, why shouldn’t 1? They’re proud to be American. Why shouldn’t 1‘? Why shouldn’t I be equally
proud of being Hispanic, being Mexican-American, and yet, not feel down about it or embarrassed about it.
No need for that” (Male Latino Mexican town resident)-

52 For example, in Orosi high school there was a sudden uproar when an Anglo football coach decided that
all players should have to shave their mustaches. The Mexican families became upset because of the
importance that Mexican men place on their mustache. It was noted that if the coach had been more aware
of cultural differences between Mexicans and Anglos the conflict COUId have been avoided.

 

 

 

C0ll

disc

Pla
the;
she
cor
occ
rel:
cor
dis
Th.
des

€ll(

P0]
M2
no
als
co:

0“

105

 

104
communities within commuting distance of Mexican towns. Each of these processes is

discussed below.

Ethnic Transformation

The first question posed in this study asked why ethnic transformation is occurring.
Places are not going through the same patterns of demographic change, and, as a result,
they are becoming increasingly dissimilar from each other. The quantitative analyses
showed that m Latino and non-Latino population growth and loss explained changing
community ethnicity. But through what processes are population growth and loss
occurring among the different ethnic and nationality groups? These factors include jobs,
relations among ethnic/nationality groups, perceptions of the quality of life in the

community, and housing. This section explores the processes that are encouraging and

 

discouraging the migration of Anglos, U.S.-born Latinos, and foreign-born Latinos.
These migration patterns have led to the geographic, economic, social, and political patterns
described above. At the same time, these patterns and divisions among people are

encouraging further ethnic transformation.

N on-Latino White Population Growth and Loss

Jobs

 

 

People in the communities under study most frequently attributed the loss of Anglo
population to a lack of economic Opportunity, as hypothesized (Hypotheses 1.1 - 1.3).
Many respondents cited the lack of opportunities for high-skill jobs in their communities,
noting that almost all employment consisted of fieldwork and packing house jobs. They
also noted that local businesses were having a hard time staying solvent as people
commuted longer distances for shopping and services. As businesses closed, the Anglo
owners moved elsewhere.

However, the relative importance of economic opportunities for understanding the

loss and growth of non-Latino population is small. People in all of the communities, even

 

 

 

 

 

 

tho
to“
0ve

em

H0
act
adr
res

W0

Vi:
em
ski
ma

wh

Spt
pla
mc
cm
the
C0]
far

Wh

C01

 

m 1'- " _,_ “He-f...

105
those that gained non-Latino population, complained about the lack of high-skill jobs in
town. For example, in Exeter, a town that experienced grgw_th in non-Latino population
over the last decade, almost all interviewees expressed concern about the lack of
employment opportunities for people with higher levels of education.

Furthermore, there were jobs for college graduates in all of the places under study.
However, the ethnicity of the community determined whether those high-skill workers
actually lived within the community. Interviews conducted in each city with principals, city
administrators, police chiefs and fire chiefs revealed a consistent pattern in terms of the
residences of their staff. Most of the teachers, hospital/clinic workers, police/emergency
workers, bank managers, and city employees in the Mexican towns did not live within the
towns in which they worked. Instead, they commuted from large cities such as Fresno or
Visalia that were 1/2 to two hours away, Anglo communities close to their city of
employment, or from a country ranch. In Anglo communities, however, most of the hi gh—
skill employees did live within the community. In fact, Anglo communities also contained
many residents who held high-skill jobs in large cities located 1/2 to two hours away, but
who chose to commute from the smaller town because they preferred to live in the country.

Jobs are important in individuals’ decisions to move into or out of regions. But the
specific place in which they settle is influenced more strongly by other factors. All rural
places have proportionately fewer high-skill and medium-skill jobs than urban places, so
most peOple have to move to urban areas, or commute long distances, to find higher-paying
employment. Those peOple who do find jobs in the rural area do not necessarily settle in
the city in which they work. While Anglo towns serve as bedroom communities for
commuting city workers, Latino towns serve as bedroom communities for commuting
farmworkers. Anglo towns serve as homes to middle-class workers in Latino towns,
while Latino towns serve as homes to working-class employees in Anglo communities.
These communities are not far from each other. However, their ethnic and economic

composition determine the type of people who live there, regardless of where their

 

 

6X

 

 

WI

[0‘

pr:

 

ch

CC

bll

Ch

 

 

106
residents work. The quantitative analyses confirm these findings in that none of the
economic climate variables (job growth, wage growth, restructuring) predict growth in

non-Latino population.

Anglo - Immigrant Relationships

Basically (this) is a Hispanic community. So if you’re an Anglo you’ll
go to Fowler, or Reedley. It’s a Hispanic town, so Anglos don ’t
want to move here. Salvadorefios are moving in, the Filipinos are
stable. Minimarts are being taken over by Hindus ( Latino Male Mexican
town resident).

(That Mexican town) is not safe. Even in the daytime. I don 't like
parking at the bank across from the supermarket with all of the Mexican
people hanging on the walls (Anglo Female Anglo town resident).

The descriptions offered earlier of the social, geographic, and political divisions that
exist in the communities under study demonstrate the general lack of social networks
between Anglo and foreign-born residents. In fact, one of the most important reasons for
white migration from Latino communities is the unease of many non-Hispanic whites
towards living in Latino communities. Part of this relationship can be simply attributed to
prejudice. As one Anglo man in a Mexican town explained the loss of white population,
"they didn’t like Mexicans. If you're [racially prejudiced], you're not going to live here."
Many respondents indicated that their friends or neighbors felt uncomfortable with the
changing ethnicity in their communities, especially as Latinos gained more political and
economic power. In one community, the election of a group of Hispanic city officials
brought about negative feelings in the Anglo community, and prompted people to leave. At
an elementary school, one secretary noted that many Anglo parents transferred their
children from that school with the installation of a new Hispanic principal:

A lot of people moved in after the war from Oklahoma. My
grandparents housed them. We played together. I had no problem with
that. In the 50s we had people coming from Nuevo Leon. Now maybe
30%. They saw Hispanics moving in -- whites started moving out. In
the 70s, 80 -— when the schools became 85—90% Hispanic in the high
school Anglo parents started sending their kids to private schools.

I Why? ] Read between my lines. I don 't want to say out loud, I do
business here (Male Latino Mexican town resident).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Par
ack
all
her
315:
La
\toi

AI

of
int.
Let
be
soc
res
qu:
La'

107

Furthermore, there are obvious tensions between Anglos and Latino immigrants.
Part of this may be due to prejudice, and part to unease at cultural difference. There is
acknowledgment among these two groups of their mutual economic dependence. Almost
all non-immigrants claim that they could not do without immigrants because “we need them
because the white people don’t want to do the work (Anglo woman)” However, there is
also distrust and lack of communication. Few Anglos speak any Spanish, while few recent
Latino immigrants speak any English. They do not socialize together. Almost all Anglos
voice resentment about the economic burdens that immigrants bring to their communities.
At the same time, almost all recent immigrants report incidents of direct discrimination by
Anglos. Of course, there are Anglo residents of Mexican towns who appreciate the influx
of new population, who recognize the strengths of the new population, and who work to
integrate farmworkers, and especially children, into the community. Likewise, some
Latino immigrants have had very good relationships with Anglos, and feel they have
benefited greatly from contact with the Anglo community. But, in general, there are large
social, economic, and geographic gaps between these groups. Therefore, those Anglo
residents who feel uncomfortable as the numerical minority often leave. As shown in the
quantitative analyses, Anglos were most likely to leave places that were ethnically more

Latino in 1980, and to move to places that were ethnically more Anglo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

cor
Lat
afft
sch
bur
hat
for:

COT

in
(its
fan
3m:
h0t
noi
nei
uns

Sill;

53 V
Con
W01

tow
as l!
sucl
diff

 

108
uali 0 Li e Factors

The relationship between immigration and white emigration is not solely attributable
to prejudice. Instead, it is more strongly related to perceived changes in the quality of
community life. Such perceptions encourage outmigration of both Anglos and middle—class
Latinos. Many people feel that immigrants from Mexico and Central America negatively
affect the community because their presence brings about overcrowded housing and
schools, more drunk driving, more demands on police and emergency workers, and
burdens on the welfare and MediCal systems. Places with larger foreign-born populations
have more problems with poverty and poverty-associated issues than places with smaller
foreign-born populations. However, the degree of influence of these problems on
community life is subjectively determined.53

Overcrowded housing results from the lack of economic resources among
immigrants, and the necessity to "double up" so that housing is affordable. Some of this
overcrowding occurs through sub-letting and sub-sub-letting. Much of it also occurs as
families and friends support each other by offering housing, and moving in together. Even
small housing units become filled past capacity. Neighbors come to resent such crowded
housing, complaining about property deterioration, the quantity of cars blocking the streets,
noise, and fights as a result of overcrowding. As they feel more uncomfortable in their
neighborhood, they search for housing elsewhere. There are even indications that some
unscrupulous landlords have purposely allowed housing to deteriorate, and have rented
single-family housing to groups of single male farmworkers in an effort to encourage

53 When asked to describe the community, there was a relationship between the economic status of a
community member and his/her belief that crime was a substantial problem in the place. Professional
workers in Mexican towns who lived in Anglo communities expressed serious concern about living in the
Mexican town, citing examples of shootings, gangs, theft, and drugs. Middle-class residents of Mexican
towns were moderately concerned, but generally stated that the problems in their community were the same
as in most places. Fannworkers and working-class residents compared their community to urban areas,
such as L.A. or Fresno, and discussed the lack of crime as one of the advantages of their community. These
different attitudes are consistent with people’s past behavior and their options for future behavior.
Farrnworkers can not afford to move to more expensive places, and so minimize the threat of danger in their

 

 

 

 

 

 

far

he

ed

etl

fat
so
lit

llC

 

109
families to move and sell their property at below-market prices (akin to “block busting”
techniques used to encourage white flight from urban areas):54
A lot [of previously owner-occupied houses] have been turned farm
laborer housing-squeeze as many as you can into it, because there’s
just so much agricultural here. It is cheap in relation to Visalia. You
can buy a house real cheap and then turn it into a farm labor camp.
People living in town, people living out of town, it doesn ’t matter.
They see the opportunity for making fast money and they squeeze as
many people into a house... It tends to be real destructive for the
community. It provides housing, but the housing is never maintained
and it tends to be poor quality. And it tends to have spillover eflects
(Male Anglo Mexican town city employee).

In the schools, teachers, administrators, and parents discuss the difficulties in
keeping up with increasing populations of students. They also noted conflict over bilingual
education. Many of the Anglo families who do live in Latino communities do not send
their children to the local schools, but to private schools in neighboring mixed-
ethnicity/Anglo communities:

The schools are overcrowded because they'll hire anybody to do field
work. Classes have gone from 20 to 35 students. Some teachers were
teaching in Spanish. I have nothing against bilingualism, but parents
were upset because even the Anglo kids were being taught in Spanish
(Female Latina resident of a Mexican town).

Problems with drunk driving, fights, and medical emergencies are attributed by
many community members to excessive alcohol and drug use among single male
farmworkers. They note the tendency of male farmworkers to drink and take drugs more
so than other residents, due to the stress of being away from their families, the difficult
living and working conditions, peer pressure from other male farmworkers, and cultural

norms. Alcoholism and use of alcohol are clearly problems in farmworker communities.

Many recent immigrants faced difficult financial situations as relatives were put in jail for

 

community, while people who chose to move from the community substantiate their behavior by
magnifying the danger in the Mexican towns.

4 “Blockbusting” is a technique that was used to encourage white flight from urban areas. It is now
illegal. Realtors would instill fear in residents of white neighborhoods that the neighborhood was being
taken over by Blacks, and that their property values were going to go down unless they sold immediately.
The realtors would then buy properties from white families at below-market prices and sell them to Black
families at above-market prices.

 

 

dr

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 10

drunk driving, and could no longer work for much-needed family income. As a result of
all of these factors, people complain that their towns look "dirty" and feel dangerous:55

There’s more violence there, in those [farmworker] houses. You put 10

guys in a house, tempers flare. There’s more drinking. We went to one

fight over a radio station. One guy shot another guy. They can get

away, too, because they just go back to Mexico. You don’t go messing

with them (Male county emergency worker).

Furthermore, wealthier communities have amenities not available in the Mexican
towns, such as a greater variety of businesses, more public and private schools, better
enforcement of city ordinances on housing and pets, and more recreational programs for
children and adults. Moneys are also more likely to be invested in areas desired by middle-
class residents rather than projects that primarily benefit poorer community residents.
Therefore, many middle-class residents who can afford to leave, do leave, and middle-class
residents who are looking for a place to settle choose not to move into Mexican towns:

At first the neighborhood was good with its new houses and good
people. There are good Mexicans. But there are bad ones, too. They
move several families into one house. First one family comes, then
relatives move in. The community was deteriorating, so we left.
(Female Anglo former Mexican town resident)

Finally, the impact of housing growth on population growth should not be
minimized. In the quantitative analyses, housing growth was the strongest predictor of
non-Latino, Latino and foreign-born population. While the relationship between housing
and population growth is reciprocal, every city official interviewed for this study attributed
much of their city’s population growth, or lack of growth, to changes in available housing.
Orange Cove has seen a jump in its population since building new low-income apartments

and houses. Exeter maintains a cap on its population growth by allowing housing to grow

by less than five percent per year. In fact, it is disagreement about housing growth,

 

55However, police/emergency workers do not report a significant problem compared to larger communities.
Furthermore, the perception of towns as "dirty" seems to differ dependlng on the person who is speaking,
and involves more than the actual appearance of the communities.

 

 

 

 

 

est

Ex

If:

aCl

res

an

we
{Cl
be:
VEi

the

 

111
especially regarding low-income or rental housing, that has caused the greatest conflict in
Exeter within the last several years. Residents know that more housing means population

growth, and they want to remain a small community.

U.S.—Born Latino Population Growth: Comparison to Anglos

For many of the same reasons that Anglos are leaving (e. g., better shOpping, more
activities, higher-quality housing, less poverty, less crowded schools, unease with recent
immigrants), middle-class, U.S.-bom Mexican-Americans are also moving to larger, more
ethnically-mixed communities. As with Anglos, many Latino respondents consider the
Anglo communities to be better places to live and to raise a family. They cite the better
resources in the wealthier cities, and they complain about problems with youth and crime,

and cultural differences of recent immigrants in the Mexican towns:

 

People just want to do better. People who move out, something better
for their kids. I mean as far as the schools, there’s not a high school
[in this town ] for the kids, there’s not a college. And I think those who
can afiord to do that don’t have transportation, so they ’re stuck (Female
Mexican town resident).

 

The Mexican men bring the town down. They follow you, making

noises. It’s annoying. They totally disrespect you. We have more
liquor stores here than ever before. (Female Latina Mexican town
resident).

The quantitative analyses showed that Latino population grew more in places that
were less Latino in 1980, controlling for immigration. As with Anglos, wealthier Latinos
tend to move away from farmworker communities. This leads to economic differences
between Latinos in Anglo/mixed communities compared to Latinos in Mexican towns. To
verify these differences, Figure 25 shows scatterplots of education levels among Latinos by
the percentage of foreign-born residents in the community. Latinos living in communities
with smaller percentages of foreign-born residents are much more likely to have high
school and college degrees than are Latinos living in places with larger percentages of

foreign-born residents.

 

 

 

 

 

SC

.41—Wm.- - _.~. ..._..

 

112

 

 

 

100 ~— -

wit...

It-

80 -J. _ .
a

tn

‘3

Q)

on .. E
% 60l§§§é 7"
(:3 f. .1“ "
O

'8

.8

0

Cl.)

.C:

.2”

:1":

a?

401:" ‘9‘?"- :" - ‘ .

- % Latinos with high
a school degrees
% Latinos with
college degrees

 

 

 

O 10 20 30 4O 50 60 70

Percentage of Community Residents Who Are Foreign-Bom

 

 

 

Figure 25. Latino Education Levels by Percentage of Residents who are Foreign-Bom

 

However, despite some similarities, several differences can be seen between
Anglos and Mexican-Americans that affect their migration patterns. It could be because of
these differences that the quantitative analyses explained less variance in Latino pOpulation
growth than in non-Latino population growth. U.S.-bom Latinos are not moving out of
Mexican towns to the same extent as Anglos, and some U.S.—bom Latinos are choosing to

move into Latino communities, while Anglos are not.

U. S. -Born Latino-Immigrant Relationships

U.S.-born Latinos, in general, have a different relationship with immigrants from
Mexico and Central America than do Anglos. Mexican-Americans who were born or raised
in the United States seem to occupy a buffering position in rural California, between
Anglos and recent immigrants. They generally have family and friendship ties with both
groups, are economically mixed with both groups, and generally speak both English and

some Spanish. Politically, they tend to hold views that vary between resentment of the

 

 

 

 

IQ

113
economic burdens of immigrants, and empathy towards immigrants due to their own roots
in the farmworker community.56 As a result, they are much less threatened by increasing
immigration into their communities. Furthermore, many have taken advantage of the
changing ethnicity of their communities and have become successful business people and
political leaders. Because of their ties to the immigrant community, and their education in
the United States, they are uniquely advantaged in their communities:
(This city) is unique in that if you really want to do something you can
do it here. Sometimes when you’re at the bottom that’s the best place to
be because everyone else sees it as why there? I guess it’s how you see
it. The fact that it 's predominantly Hispanic, the fact that I did have

an opportunity to get a good education... (Male Latino Mexican town
city employee)

Housing
Second, many Latinos face structural impediments to migration. Most of the

housing in Anglo/mixed—ethnicity communities is more costly than that in Latino
communities. Not only are housing units of the same size more expensive, but the type of
housing that is available is in a higher price range. Because Latino families generally own
less wealth than Anglo families, it is more difficult for them to move to areas with higher-
priced housing: _

[ Why do people stay in (here)? What makes it attractive .7] It's not

attractive, ha-ha. It's a small town. There are lower housing prices
(Female Latina Mexican town resident).

Cultural Diflerences

There are also cultural differences between Anglo and Mexican families that are
suggested to impact migration decisions. Many respondents noted that Latino children are
more than Anglo children likely to stay in their community as they come to be adults.

Latino respondents attributed this phenomenon to closer family ties and greater

 

56 e.g., “There’s very little resentment on the immigrants coming in because they’re mostly family.
There’s so many connections one way or another. If it’s not your family, it’s your neighbor’s family. I
think from, at least from the Hispanic community, there’s not that much resentment” (Female Latina
Mexican town resident).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bl

 

114

responsibility towards family among Latinos. Adult Latinos, they suggested, maintain
closer ties with their parents and siblings than Anglos and so are less likely to leave the
community.57 Not only do they feel emotional ties, but they help each other economically
with educational expenses, house maintenance costs, and general family support, so that
they feel an economic responsibility towards staying. Non-Latinos attributed this
phenomenon to a lack of experience outside of the Latino community. Adult Latinos, they
suggested, feel uncomfortable in Anglo communities and environments because of cultural
and economic differences, and consequently are less likely to leave home and more likely to
return. Regardless of the motivation of young Latino adults, the fact that they are more
likely to remain encourages their parents to stay as well, so that there is a reinforcing effect
that maintains the Latino population in the community. Because Anglo children do not stay
in the communities in which they were raised, their parents are less interested in remaining
in these communities after they retire. In fact, adult Anglo children often encourage their
parents to move out of the Latino communities, because they view them as unsafe.
Therefore, both younger and older Anglos are more likely to leave Latino communities
because of cultural differences between ethnic groups: .

But it ’s only the old-timers that move out, like husband and wife. I

think that that ’s the Anglos, the English. Because all their kids are

grown up. They grow up and they move out. So it’s only the husband

and the wife left at home. So they sell their house and they move out

(Female Mexican town resident).

Additionally, some middle-class Latinos have decided to stay within their

communities, despite economic opportunities elsewhere, because of their concern for their
communities, and the promotion of the well-being of future generations of Mexican-

Americans. Segura (1992) has noted the desire among many minorities to seek jobs in

which they promote the needs of their ethnic community. By staying and working with

57 However, Anglos as well as Latinos discussed family roots as important reasons for remaining in their
community. It could be that these Anglos place more importance on family ties than the Anglos who left.

 

 

 

115

their communities, Latino community leaders re-affirm their ethnic identities, and receive
the satisfaction of knowing that they are contributing to something that is important to them:

I still live in ( that Mexican town). It’s familiar, with all the people in

town. And I wanted to be an example for my friends and their kids.

When I was growing up you used to hear about how the Japanese, the

whites, are smart peOple. Why not us? I always thought that maybe

people looked at me like maybe I wasn’t going to accomplish much.

Maybe because of who I was and my nationality, I don’t know. That ’s

one thing I could say about myself, I’ve always had something to prove

(Male Latino Mexican town resident).
While many Anglo residents of Mexican towns also work to promote their community and
increase opportunities for local children, they do not have the ethnic motivation that inspires

more of the Latino community members, and their visions for the community sometimes

clash with the Latino-majority population.

 

Jobs

 

The quantitative analyses showed that population growth was not affected by labor

market changes, with the exception of the effect of agricultural intensification on Latino and

 

foreign-born population growth. The importance of agricultural employment in settlement
decisions also came through in qualitative interviews. Consistently, Latino respondents
without post-high school education mentioned the availability of year-round employment as
one of the primary reasons they moved to the area. Agricultural and food
processing/packaging jobs attract former migrant workers, but they also attract U.S.-born
workers who would never consider migrant labor but are not opposed to agricultural labor
in general. Some people have even moved from higher-paying jobs in large cities to lower-
paying jobs in the rural areas to get away from crime and violence in the city. The

availability of agricultural jobs has a larger impact on Latino population growth than does

 

116

the availability of other types of jobs because these jobs are aimed primarily at low-skill
Latino workers.58

Moreover, the effect of year-round agricultural employment on Latino settlement
goes beyond its attraction of low-wage field and food-processing plant workers.
Established-resident Latinos are not attracted to places because of field work. However,
they have unique opportunities in farmworker communities that can encourage them to
stay. Therefore, because the intensification of agricultural production encourages the
settlement of foreign-born workers, it indirectly encourages the settlement of U.S.-—bom
Latinos. For example, those people who speak both English and Spanish and who have
connections with recent immigrants can become farm labor contractors and farm managers.
They can also fill employment niches created by the growing foreign-born population, such
as working in migrant education, or as interpreters or bilingual employees, or becoming
entrepreneurs who serve low-wage farmworker populations. In areas such as housing,
insurance, check cashing, food services, and discount product sales, people have started
businesses without much competition and with small capital investment.59 They know
what services are needed by farmworkers, and if they have the language, skills, and
networks to meet those needs they can deve10p successful careers. The quantitative section
showed that places that experienced foreign born population growth experienced greater
Latino population growth. This Was expected because most foreign-born residents are
Latino. However, part of this relationship may also result because of the special economic

opportunities for U.S.-bom Latinos that accompany growth in foreign-born population.

58 e. g., “My cousin’s family used to live in L.A., but they moved here because they like it better. It’s
more like quiet. In L. A. there are a lot of gang members. They wanted a place for their children to go to
school and it’s better for them” (Female Latina Mexican town resident)-

59 For example, because of the housing shortage in agricultural areas, it is easy to find tenants for even the
least expensive housing, especially in peak picking seasons. Because many migrant workers lack kitchen
facilities in their housing there is a high demand for food services. There is also a demand for discount
clothing and products, so that some people have begun their businesses by selling out of their cars and
eventually moving into stores.

‘l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I—H

IK~_.

*7

 

1 17
Foreign-Bom Population Growth

Jobs
Immigrants are seen as a never—ending source of population growth. There is a

general consensus that as long as the economic Opportunities in Mexico are low, the
Mexican population of California will continue to grow. People claim that the quality of
jobs and the quality of life in the communities are not as important to foreign-born
newcomers because of the comparison to economic opportunities in Mexico:60

They come here because of a friend of a friend, and the other friend

brings five or six. They don’t tell them about the living conditions, they

only tell them that there ’s work. And people need money in Mexico so

it sounds good. So they come (Female Latina Mexican town resident).

Year-round employment leads to permanent settlement of foreign-born workers because it
is no longer necessary or economically profitable to move around for employment.
Therefore, regional areas undergoing agricultural restructuring from seasonal to long-term
crops experience more growth in the permanent settlement of farmworkers:

As the citrus acreage increased that brought stability to (this town) and
the other cities along the orange belt. As you had more reliable

work than it became less necessary to migrate out of the area (Male
Latino Mexican town resident).

Housing

Because the location of fieldwork varies from job to job, housing costs are more
salient than job proximity for settlement decisions. There is a lack of quality affordable
housing for agricultural workers in most of the agricultural communities, so residents are
forced to live in substandard units until they can find better housing. As a result, the most
commonly mentioned reason for movement to Latino communities was the availability of

affordable housing. The effect of housing on population growth can be seen in the

 

P0 However, while people may stay in California because of the greater economic opportunities than those
In Mexico or Central America, they are also very aware of their economic position compared to U.S.-born
resrdents and feel frustrated by the inequality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ouuxx
farmw
apartn
pohch
inneh

Slll'l'Ol

avafla
hisn
torch
housi
reskh
thetfl
housi
Hous

hous

lesss
those
andi
ifiSp

com

 

118
outcomes of local housing policies. The city of Orange Cove purposely increased its
farmworker population by promoting the development of low-income houses and
apartments. The farmworker population of Exeter substantially decreased at one time when
policies restricting housing growth brought Exeter’s houses and rents out of line with those
in neighboring places.61 Exeter no longer has a “barrio” where farmworkers live, but it is
surrounded by corrrmunities composed mostly of farmworkers.

In a tight housing market, any type of housing growth can lead to greater
availability of low-income housing, as older units are vacated for newer homes. Therefore,
it is not just low—income housing growth that leads to foreign-born population growth. The
foreign-born populations of both Exeter and Orange Cove have grown, although the newer
housing in Exeter is of a much higher price range than that in Orange Cove. Established
residents have moved into new houses and apartments, allowing newcomers to move into
the older units. This is consistent with the quantitative analyses which showed that
housing growth, rather than housing costs, predicted all types of population growth.
Housing growth opens up affordable housing without necessarily lowering average

housing costs.

Qualigg of Life Factors

The quality of life factors that are important to U.S.-born Latinos and Anglos are
less salient to farmworkers because many compare the conditions in the rural towns to
those available to them in larger cities. They view the Mexican towns as safer places to live
and raise children. They also feel more comfortable in towns that are predominantly
Hispanic, as these places are more likely to have bilingual service providers, and

communities of other peOple from their home areas in Mexico.

 

61 This also made it more difficult for high- and middle-income people to move there, including people who
had grown up in Exeter. It also made it difficult for Exeter residents to move within the city.

 

 

 

resir
“CW1

resit

tend
new
con
Pop
higl

 

119
Ethnicity and Economic Development

Housing, agricultural intensification, community ethnic composition, and social
capital between ethnic and national-origin groups each influence the ethnic transformation
of rural places. Ethnic transformation, in turn, affects the socio-economic conditions of
places. The quantitative analyses showed that non-Latino and foreign-born population
growth directly affected community economic development. The human capital level of
communities in 1980 was also an important predictor of economic deve10pment, along with
job and wage growth. Each of these factors has been noted by community residents as
directly and indirectly affecting the well-being of their community. The processes through

which economic development is affected by these conditions are described in this section.

Population Growth

 

Long-term residents are prouder of the community. They keep their
houses up. New, shorter-termers don't. Newcomers come from
Mexico. They have different standards (Male Anglo Mexican town
resident).

 

The newer [residents] are leaving large areas like LA and what have
you. They’re looking for something difi‘erent. The older (residents), I
think they’re very concerned about growth. They don’t want it to get
much bigger, you know, get out of hand. I think the people that
come in here probably have got more education, probably higher level
skills (Anglo Female Anglo-town resident).

People speak of “newcomers” as people who are different from established
residents, but who are quickly absorbed into the community. In Anglo/mixed places,
newcomers are perceived to have more education and higher incomes than established
residents. They often come from larger cities seeking a small town environment. In
Mexican towns newcomers are usually immigrants from Mexico or Central America. They
tend to have Leg education and lower incomes than established residents. Both types of
newcomers are viewed simultaneously as having positive and negative effects on the
community by established community residents. In-Anglo/mixed places there are fears that

population growth will change the character of life in the small town, although it brings

hi gher—income people into the city and boosts housing values. In Mexican towns

 

 

 

 

popul
incon

will f

Lahn
nonl
wealt
while
inbo
pros;
popu
nngl
hihl

niah

farm
[flats
grou
such

and.

 

 

120
population growth is seen as a possible sources of economic growth, despite the low
incomes of newcomers. As more peOple move in, there is h0pe that business development
will follow.

Quantitative analyses showed that places which experienced more growth in non—
Latino population experienced greater economic development, while those that lost more
non-Latinos experienced less economic development. Non-Latinos tend to have more
wealth, on average, than Latinos, so growth in non-Latinos brings economic development
while loss in this population brings economic decline. This is clearly recognized by people
in both Anglo and Latino communities. When asked why Exeter was economically more
prosperous than neighboring communities, almost all respondents noted the larger Anglo
population. In the Mexican towns, people also noted the larger Anglo population in
neighboring places to explain their community’s relative disadvantage. However, residents
in Mexican towns more often highlighted their large farmworker population to explain the
relative economic differences.

Farrnworker towns are known to be low-income places because the income of
farmworkers is not stable. As places become increasingly composed of farmworkers, the
places themselves also become increasingly economically vulnerable. At the same time,
growth of foreign-born population also has positive effects on community development,
such as boosting property values and providing a market and labor supply for businesses

and entrepreneurs. Immigration also decreases the dependency ratio of the community (that

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

is, in
PeOP
dove
in fat

COHC

deve

——
p—4.
_'-

%'<nhomsxm\#m*fimfi’+_

"n

K)ec
Lahr
lengt
SOUR

econ

 

 

121
is, increasing the percentage of the population that is of working age--18 to 65).62 Many
people in the Mexican towns are hoping that population growth will bring economic
development. The quantitative analyses showed that foreign-born population growth can,
in fact, both enhance and decrease measures of economic development, depending on the

concurrent growth of jobs and wages in the area.

Ethnic Transformation

Beyond the direct effects of population growth on community economic
development, population growth can indirectly affect economic development by influencing
political conflict:

As the Latino population increases there are some very interesting things
that happen, both good and bad. Good things that are happening as we
get more Latinos in the community is property values, for example,
property values as you experience white flight property values drop.
Once the white flight has ended, then you see the fastest rise in pr0perty
values in communities that are predominantly Latino. Interesting, right?
In other words, take Los Angeles county for example, your biggest
decline in property values are in places like Malibu, the predominantly
Anglo sections of LA. county. Your largest increases in property value
are in the Latino or Hispanic sections of LA. county. And we’re seeing
some of that now in our area. The other thing that happens in the area
of crime, for example, as that transition is taking place from
predominantly Anglo to predominantly Hispanic, we see high rates of
crime. Once that transformation has taken place you go back and now
you have a predominantly Hispanic population, you know with white
flight has ended, you’re now a 90 - 95 % Hispanic community, crime
rates go way down (Male Anglo county official ).

However, qualitative interviews suggest that changing ethnic composition also led
to economic stagnation through political and social conflict. In both of the incorporated
Latino cities under primary study, Orange Cove and Woodlake, respondents discussed at
length the high degree of conflict that existed in their community in the past, and that to
some extent continues to exist. In both places city employees described long periods of

economic stagnation in their community as city officials, business owners, and other

 

62 Traditionally, nrral places have smaller percentages of working-age population as people seek higher-
paying employment in bigger cities. This is not the case in Latino communities because of the influx of
young adult farmworkers. Exeter, on the other hand, has a high dependency ratio.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

huen
nsue
hner

dhcr

~fi~tn~fi¥i

>— ~_ _‘ -_. A ’5‘ ‘. \-v- \‘D-‘_

less
func
bCCE
[Ede
enn

finu

 

122
interest groups did not cooperate to promote economic development. Although many
issues were involved in these conflicts, they could be classified as either farmworker
interests versus business interests, or salad bowl versus melting pot perspectives, as

discussed in the previous section:

The town is divided politically, between those who support the mayor
and council and those who don 't. The council is supported by the less
educated, more prejudiced pro-Hispanic people. If push comes to
shove, they'll come down on the pro-Hispanic, anti-American side.
Even though the opposition is mostly Hispanic, they say that the
opposition is under the influence of whites (Male Anglo Mexican town

Resident).

Half of Orange Cove loves the mayor and the city council. The other
half despises them. And yet, they know the man is trying to bring
up the community... as far as getting jobs in here, as far as getting
homes. Not just projects or apartments, he’s actually trying to get
homes. And they ’11 be people praising him for that, and they’ll be
people putting him down for that. Because a lot of the people here, that
are old-timers here, whether they be Anglo or whether they be Mexican,
they don’t really want to see Orange Cove grow anymore. ...But if we
want this community to make it on its own we’ve got to have more
housing, we ’ve got to have more jobs coming in (Female Latina
Mexican town resident).

Both communities now show signs of substantial improvement in terms of a

 

 

lessening of community political conflict, improved housing, and "greater availability of

 

funds for economic development.63 In both cases these improved conditions have occurred
because of decisive victories of new political leaders, more aggressive city efforts to pursue
federal and state grants, and greater interest in community redevelopment projects. City
employees, and many community residents, showed considerable optimism about the
future, based on the city improvements they had recently accomplished.

In contrast, city officials in the Anglo community under study described at length

the amount of cooperation in their town. Some people remarked that city council meetings

 

63 Development moneys in both of these cities were used for low-income residents, rather than for business-
owners, or higher—income residents as in other communities studied. City governments in both of these
communities seemed to show a greater commitment to helping low-income farm worker families than did
the governments of ethnically-diverse communities. They attributed this concern to their own backgrounds
as farm workers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rterc
(rga
theh

andr

iflhn

FIAN

>9500

thatt
bear
popu
pove
peOp

deve

 

123
were boring because nobody ever seemed to disagree. The schools, businesses, social
organizations, and city government worked so well together that they were able to pool
their moneys within the last year to build an Olympic-size swimming pool, tennis courts,

and a baseball stadium for the community.

Human Capital

[Where do you think community money should be put?] Education.
And I 'm not just talking about the schools. I’m talking about educating
the public as far as new ideas and work, how to better themselves,
general knowledge. Not that the people are ignorant, no. But
sometimes it takes a little stimulation to create growth (Male Latino
Mexican town resident).

Community economic development from 1980 to 1990 was substantially higher in
places in which a greater percentage of adults had high school degrees in 1980. This could
be an indicator of underclass conditions in some places. Places in which the majority of the
population has only limited education should have concurrent problems with income and
poverty. However, it is also an indicator that such places may lack sufficient numbers of

people with leadership and business skills to direct the community’s economic

development:

 

 

 

rn~m-VrmmNNmfi~th-_1

NMNNfi-gt‘ \M-fim

com
poor
OVCF
roles
in th
lOWe
Syslt

with

6“ A1
reSldt

 

 

a.. r .
, ”gym-«n- ’M‘ 1"“

124

The problem that we’re experiencing in small, rural communities as they
become predominantly Latino, you’re dealing with a lot of first and
second generation Hispanic families and we are not seeing leadership
emerge yet. What happens in the Latino communities, you get
people who come up here from Mexico primarily, they move into a
community, they raise their kids, they try to do more for their kids than
they had, a lot of these people are totally uneducated. They don’t learn
the language because they don ’t have the opportunity. (So they
don’t get involved as community leaders.) So now the second
generation of Latinos, generally goes on to junior college. And the
reason for this, and I see kid after kid after kid, bright, intelligent
Latino kids that have full scholarships and you find out that the

reason they didn’t go was that they weren’t comfortable. The social
discrepancies are so large that there is no comfort level in them going
more than a few miles away to college. So now you have your

second generation living in the community with a junior college
education, capable of assuming leadership, but still committed to the
vow their parents made, to make life better for the succeeding
generation. By the time they have children and their children are in
high school, they realize that they blew it by not taking advantage of that
scholarship they had. So now they are working hard at putting their
kids through college, making life better for their kids, with little or no
time at all for community involvement. Now you have a community
like that where there is nothing for the next generation, the well educated
generation, to come back to. They are dispersed to the four comers of
the world (Male Anglo county official).

Several of the local leaders interviewed for this study discussed problems in
community leadership. They noted that in many of the Latino communities a handful of
peOple ran most of the local organizations, and that these people Were generally older and
over-extended. They found it difficult to get younger generations involved in leadership
roles, because few of the local children who attain higher levels of education actually stay
in the community as adults.64 Most of the working-age population is foreign-born with
lower levels of education. They have little experience with the political and economic
systems affecting the community, as well as fewer resources in terms of time and money

with which they can get involved. Those people with higher levels of education who work

—_—_

64 Although, as discussed earlier, Latino children were more likely to stay in the community, most
resrdents (Latino and non-Latino) who go on to higher education do not stay in the community.

 

 

 

 

 

inthet
Thnlc
knowl
credh
nuwo

nouad

succe
these
towth
aretx
labor

local

thetl
rend.
anal
asns
gove

entre

65

Rex
or iii
club,

125
in the communities are more likely to be involved in the communities in which they live.65
This leaves a smaller pool of people who can step into leadership positions with the skills,
knowledge, and social networks to be successful. People in Orange Cove, for example,
credit the success of their government to the fact that it has a strong leader with broad
networks within the community, with other communities, and at the national level. They
note that other places have not been successful because they lack this leadership.

Furthermore, places with lower levels of human capital are less likely to have
successful business development. This is not to say that entrepreneurship does not exist in
these places. To the contrary, both foreign-born and U.S.-bom residents of Mexican
towns have developed businesses of all types. Some of the richest community members
are people who have developed businesses based on the farmworker population--farm
labor contractors and check cashing/currency exchange enterprises. However, thriving
local economies are not developing from these businesses.

Portes and Manning (1986) note that one of the most important elements needed for
the development of an ethnic enclave economy is business experience. In places where few
residents have high school degrees, this experience is less frequent. In interviews with
small business owners, many people expressed the need for greater knowledge and
assistance in navigating laws and getting business advice. Several county business and
government leaders discussed the economic potential that exists in Mexican towns for

entrepreneurs who have both business expertise and an understanding of the culture of the

 

65 e.g., “ What you have is schools where the teachers don’t live here. They live in Clovis. They live in
Reedley. They come here to work, but then they’ve got to get home by 3:30 to get their kids in cub scouts
or little league. Do they just take him to practice and drop him off? No, they’re probably president of the
club. or involved in some way. That’s what (this town) lacks” (Male Latino Mexican town resident).

 

 

 

 

recog
and ‘
fede:

deva

obta

impl
com
and

DC“.

to it
intc

hov

66 t.

11nd
in (
son

(M:

 

126
community.66 While some successful businesses have been developed, they note that few

people possess both of these types of knowledge.

Social Capital
(Our mayor) calls up Washington and people know who he is. He went
to Washington and let them know the situation of the growers and
fieldworkers here. He ’s the leader of the Fresno County group of
mayors When the freeze hit people in Fresno dedicated a dinner to
him because he went to Washington on the part of the growers, of the
people of this area (Male Latino worker in a Mexican town).

Networks with county, state, and federal government (vertical social capital) are
recognized as being very important for community economic development. Orange Cove
and Woodlake have been able to obtain new housing because of connections with the
federal government and pursuance of grants. In 1990, when a catastrOphic freeze
devastated the entire region, the mayor of Orange Cove was able to bring in federal funding
by appealing to Washington. His networks have allowed Orange Cove to continue to
obtain federal aid for the community in times of need.

Networks among community residents (horizontal networks) are also very
important. As discussed under the section on changing ethnic composition, many
communities attribute their lack of economic development to conflict within the community,
and lack of communication between established U.S.-bom residents and foreign-born
newcomers.

The lack of networks between economic classes and ethnic groups also contributes
to the absence of leadership among community members. If newcomers are not integrated

into the clubs and social networks of established members, they do not receive training in

how to run community organizations. If the community leaders then leave, or if the new

 

66 “It’s going to take two things for somebody to do well in a community like Cutler/Orosi. One is
understanding business principles. The other is to understand the culture of the community. What happens
in Cutler/Orosi is you have lots of people who understand the culture of the community, and you have
some people who understand the principles of running a business, but very few people understand both”
(Male Anglo county official).

 

 

 

 

Mart
of in
get it

SUCCr

uniq

 

 

127

population is uncomfortable with the way the community is being run, there is nobody to
5

take over the leadership roles:

You had these people who were in power in (this city). Let’s say
they’re running the boy scouts, if you don’t set in a plan to train new
leaders when you leave there’s going to be a void there. (This city), I
feel personally, that a lot of our institutions like boy scouts, girl scouts,
little league, we lost leadership. If you don’t have the knowledge or
self-esteem to change something, then you’re caught dead in the water.
(This city) in the last 5 years has started changing that. We ’re learning
that we can do anything any other place does, but we’ve got to do it for
ourselves. Plans are being made now to train new leaders (Mexican
town city employee).

Many of the highly-involved Latino leaders with whom I spoke discussed the importance
of mentors -- established Anglo and Latino community members who encouraged them to
get involved in the community as children or young adults. They attributed much of the

success in their lives to the fact that these mentors broadened their outlook beyond that of

farrnwork and traditional expectations. However, they noted that their experiences were

unique.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cali:
com
factt
assu
frorr
affet
The
hyrx
men
dem
com
ethn

com

or d
proc

POp'

 

CHAPTER 6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary of Hypotheses

This study set out to explain: 1) why the ethnic composition of places in rural
California is changing, and what the factors are leading to uneven changes; and 2) why
community socio-economic well-being is so strongly defined by ethnicity, and what the
factors are leading to unequal wealth and development. While previous researchers have
assumed that the increasing “Latinization” of places was due to continuing immigration
from Mexico and Latin America, this study hypothesized that community ethnicity was also
affected by population growth and population loss of non-Latinos and U.S.—bom Latinos.
The growth of all three types of population (foreign-born, Latino, and non-Latino) were
hypothesized to vary based on industrial factors, previous wealth held by community
members, immigration factors, geographic context, cost of living "differences, and
demographic changes (see Figure 2). These same factors were also hypothesized to affect
community economic development, along with the population growth of the three
ethnic/national-origin groups. Therefore, it was expected that the combination of ethnic

composition and economic factors would explain the relationship between the ethnic
composition of places and their economic development.
Ethnic Transformation

Places could become increasingly Latino through either growing Latino population

or declining non-Latino (white) population. It was hypothesized that both of these
processes were occurring. Quantitative analyses showed that Latino and non-Latino

population growth contributed in relatively equal amounts to the changing ethnic

128

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

com}
com]
non-
Mex

lmm

more
perc
Iran:
wen
loss
COllt
tran
P0P
21 re
P0P

C0ll

con
Lat
mo

pla

bor

inc

 

' “TA“ ' ' -._‘~- .- .-. .a 7
m “‘4-_.,-—-—_ F_ _ .. F’

 

129
composition of communities. The contribution of foreign-born population growth to
communities’ changing ethnic composition was much smaller than that of either Latino or
non-Latino population. This finding runs counter to the belief that immigration from
Mexico and Latin America is the chief cause of demographic change in rural California.
Immigration is only a part of the cause of Latino concentration in rural places.

These results differ from those obtained by Allensworth and Rochin (1996) using a

 

more specific sample of places. They found that in agricultural places that were at least 15
percent Latino in 1980, non-Latino population loss contributed twice as much to ethnic
transformation as did Latino population growth. Because almost all places in that sample
were experiencing growing Latino population, it was non-Latino population growth and
loss that determined which places experienced larger relative growth in Latino
concentration. These different results allow some insight into the process of ethnic

transformation. In areas that have smaller percentages of Latino residents, Latino

 

population growth brings about differentiation in ethnic composition between places. Once
a region becomes substantially Latino, so that most places have a substantial Latino
population, non-Latino population loss has a larger differentiating effect on ethnic

composition than does Latino population growth.

Focusing on changing ethnicity, however, obscures the fact that it is actually
concentration of people of like economic status that is occurring. Anglos and wealthier
Latinos are moving away from farmworker communities. Foreign-bom Latinos are

moving to places with more affordable housing, regardless of the ethnic composition of the

place.

N on-Latino, Latino, and Foreign-bom Population Growth

Community ethnicity was affected by growth in non-Latino, Latino, and foreign-

bom population. Factors that were hypothesized to affect each type of population growth

included agricultural restructuring, housing availability and costs, prior ethnic composition,

 

 

 

 

and f
hypo

Agni

POPL
restr
P0P1
large

type

agri
the :
deer
fan-
em;
resi
shil
inte
the
set
inc.
ex;
job
P01
tha

POj

130
and family growth. Each are discussed below, followed by an integration of the

hypotheses into a model explaining the cyclical process of ethnic transformation.

Agricultural and Industrial Restructuring
It was hypothesized that agricultural restructuring had led to growth in foreign-born

population through demand for low-wage labor (Hypothesis 1.1). One type of agricultural
restructuring-agricultural intensification--did predict both Latino and foreign-born
population growth. Other changes in agricultural employment-—shifts from small-scale to
large-scale farming, and growth in the number of agricultural jobs, were not related to any
type of population growth.

These results differ from those of Taylor and Martin (1996), who found that more
agricultural jobs brought about foreign-born population growth. However, they measured
the number of agricultural jobs by the number of agricultural workers, ignoring the
decreasing amount of work that individual workers are able to obtain. Separating jobs and
farm payrolls from the number of agricultural workers shows that more agricultural
employment does not necessarily lead to greater settlement of Latinos and foreign-born
residents. Instead, Latino and foreign-born population grew in places in which agriculture
shifted to more high-profit, labor-intensive crops. This is consistent with qualitative
interviews in which farmworkers, and peOple originally from farmworker families, noted

the availability of year-round agricultural work as one of the primary reasons they chose to

 

settle in the area. It is not the amount of agricultural work that is available that attracts low-
income Latino settlement, but the pipe of work (year-round versus seasonal). This
explains the growing settlement of Latino farmworkers despite increasing competition for
jobs, and conversely, the greater competition for jobs in places with growing farmworker
population. Competition does not slow settlement because it is the up; of work, rather

than the amount of work, that promotes farmworker settlement.

 

Agricultural restructuring was also hypothesized to have led to loss of non-Latino

population. However, the quantitative analyses found no relationship between

 

 

 

 

 

restr
smtrl
little
agrit

by a

of n
thes
em;
em}

gait

lew

fou

enc
fur.
me
the
har
grt
is l
Spl
grt

rel

be

"ba “VJ-"r' -"- e: ‘

131
restructuring and non-Latino population growth. Qualitative interviews showed that only a
small proportion of Anglo residents worked in agriculture, so changes in agriculture had
little effect on the population growth Of this group. Those Anglos who did work in
agriculture often owned the farm on which they worked, so their job would not be affected
by agricultural restructuring.

Job and wage growth, and wages in 1980, were hypothesized to encourage growth
of non-Latino, Latino, and foreign-born population (Hypotheses 1.3 and 1.4). Neither of
these hypotheses were confirmed. While people move to flag where they can find
employment, their plac_e Of residence is not necessarily the same as their place of
employment. In regions that experienced job and wage growth, some places might have
gained population, but other places lost pOpulation. Higher wages and employment levels
might have attracted people to move into the region, but higher wages and employment
levels could also have given people the opportunity to move out Of communities that they
found less desirable.

It could be that the variables used in the quantitative analyses were not specific
enough to capture the effects Of job and wage growth on population growth, especially for
foreign-born population. Immigrants’ labor migration is often limited by their restricted
means of gathering information on employment (Sassen 1995). More Specific analysis of
the types Of employment and the actual social networks that exist among immigrants might
have led to different conclusions. The one employment variable that did predict population
growth, agricultural intensification, reflects a change in a specific type Of employment that
is held almost exclusively by foreign-born Latinos. It could be because these jobs are
specifically targeted for low-wage Latino workers that foreign-born and Latino population
grew throughout areas eXperiencing this type Of restructuring.

Alternatively, agricultural intensification may be the only significant employment-
related predictor of population growth simply because the low-wage workers who would

be attracted to agricultural jobs have fewer settlement Options available to them than high-

 

 

 

 

incc
P0P
diffr
ava:
hav
hou
con
gro

[OW

Pol

res
of 1
ap;
aff

Cllt

P0]
hOl
6X]

inc

132
income individuals. It has been suggested that job and wage growth did not predict
population growth because people’s IDLE of settlement is determined by factors that are
different from those that influence their Ego—n of settlement (i.e., quality Of life versus job
availability). Regional growth in the permanent settlement of agricultural workers might
have affected all places within the region as workers settled wherever they could find
housing. This would include "doubling up" in Older housing in non-farmworker
communities, or finding newer low—income housing in farmworker communities. Regional
growth Of Anglo or middle-class workers would not increase the population in Mexican
towns because Anglos and middle-class Latinos would not settle there. TO the contrary,
regional growth in higher-paying jobs might encourage people with rising incomes to move

out of poorer communities.

Housing
Hypothesis 1.5 predicted that housing growth would predict all three types Of

population growth. In the quantitative analyses housing growth was the strongest predictor
Of each. The importance Of housing also came through in interviews with community
residents and government Officials. People moved to places where they could find the type
Of housing in which they were interested. Farrnworkers moved to places with affordable
apartments and houses, while Anglo residents moved to places with larger homes and more
affluent neighbors. City governments used housing subsidies and controls to either
encourage or discourage low-income and higher-income population growth.

In contrast, housing _(_3_(_)_S§ variables did not predict either Latino or foreign-born
pOpulation growth. Non-Latino population grew more rapidly in places with increasing
housing prices. Prices might have grown because of the demand for housing in places
experiencing non-Latino population growth. At the same time, qualitative interviews
indicated that many Anglos were moving to places with new high-income neighborhoods.

While housing growth was more important than housing costs in predicting all

types of population growth, interviews suggested that housing affordability was very

 

 

 

 

 

imp
fan
resr

are:

hat
an:
La!
Fu:

of
b0}
80

pet

for

prt
liv

bo

 

 

133
important for most peOple’s settlement decisions. This was especially true among
farmworkers. The importance of housing growth for predicting population growth could
result because housing growth tends to increase the availability of affordable housing. In
areas where there is a housing shortage, any type of housing growth can increase the
availability of low- or moderate-income housing. Established residents move into the new
houses and apartments, thereby freeing up old housing. Therefore, the overall costs of
housing may rise at the same time that more housing becomes available at low-income

levels. This explains the lack of significant housing cost variables.

Ethnic Composition in 1980

Hypothesis 1.6 prOposed that non-Latino population lo_ss was greater in places that
had larger concentrations of foreign-born residents, due to ethnic conflict. Quantitative
analyses showed that places with more foreign-born residents in 1980 lost more non-
Latinos, while places with fewer foreign-born residents gained more non—Latinos.
Furthermore, controlling for foreign-born population growth, Iatino population also grew

at smaller rates in places with greater proportions of foreign-born residents in 1980. Both

 

of these phenomena are consistent with qualitative interviews which revealed that U.S.-
bom Latinos and Anglos preferred living in places with smaller farmworker populations.
Some based their decisions to leave Mexican towns, or to not settle in them, on their unease
around Mexicans, feelings of prejudice, or feelings of being an “outsider.” More Often,
peOple cited concerns about community deterioration that they associated with the
farmworker population as motivation for moving out Of their neighborhood, or not settling
in the Mexican town. Political conflict between “farmworker/salad bowl” and
“business/melting pot” perspectives in places with larger foreign-born pOpulations also
prompted people to leave. In contrast, Latino immigrants were more ambivalent about
living in places with smaller percentages of foreign—bom residents, as these places held

both advantages and disadvantages for them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

plat
resi
wet
Wt
res:
EXI
eth
Ex
P0?
ea
the
de

de

Sl

In

Or

 

134

Size of Place

It was proposed in Hypothesis 1.8 that places that were larger or that served a
larger geographical area had experienced higher levels Of population growth than other
places. This was not found to be the case in the quantitative analyses. In interviews, local
residents suggested that some places might be attracting people because they were large, or
were located near highways that connected them to large cities or recreational areas. Some
Woodlake residents, for example, suggested that Exeter held an advantage for attracting
residents by being slightly closer than Woodlake to Visalia. However, Woodlake and
Exeter experienced the same population growth rates from 1980 to 1990, although the
ethnic composition Of this growth was distinct. Furthermore, places closer to Visalia than
Exeter, such as Farmersville and Ivanhoe, did not experience the growth in Anglo
population that Exeter experienced. While businesses are centralizing due to increasing
ease of transportation, the ease of commuting makes it less necessary for people to live in
the place in which they are employed. Future studies might examine the degree Of business
development by both size of place and ethnic composition. This study only examined the

development of people within places, rather than characteristics of places themselves.

Family Qrowth

Growth in family size also did not predict population growth, contrary to
Hypothesis 1.9. This variable was negatively correlated with foreign-born population
growth, but the causal relationship is more likely the reverse Of that hypothesized. Recent
immigrants are less likely to have children living with them in the United States than are
U.S.-bom Latinos, so places with more growth in foreign-born population experienced

smaller growth in family size.

Cyclical Model pt Ethnic Tpanstormation

The process Of ethnic transformation can be seen as a cycle of two simultaneously-
occurring phases. (See Figure 26, below.) In the first phase, the existence of labor-

intensive employment attracts foreign-born Latino workers, either through recruitment or

'n‘fl ~~_.-.o. - -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wort
com
avai

WOl

mid
(det
bets
nur
Lat
use
em

the

\

K25? H

 

#3 X's ~'._....- -

135
word-of-mouth. If employment is available year-round, migrant workers settle in
communities in which they can find affordable housing. Where affordable housing is not
available, they find means to make it affordable, such as “doubling up.” The availability of
workers, in turn, encourages further intensification of agricultural employment.

In the second phase, settlement Of foreign-born residents prompts Anglo and
middle-class Latino emigration through perceptions of decreased community well-bein g
(deteriorating housing, crowded schools, lowered public safety), increased conflict
between “farmworker” and middle—class perspectives, and ill-ease at the presence of greater
numbers Of Mexicans. Middle-class emigration, in turn, encourages further settlement Of
Latino immigrants, through the greater availability of housing that can be divided up and
used to house greater numbers of individuals and families. It also encourages further
emigration of middle-class residents through a lowering of community SES, and,

therefore, perceptions Of greater deterioration in the community.

 

 
  
 
   
       
   
   
 

Perceived

 

 

 

- Community
Ag 11¢.me Deterioration:
ten srficatron *H 0 using
*Scho 01s
I *Safety
Unequal - _
Economic ngrin *
Opportunities: -
Mex ico—U .S. Latmo N on-

  

Settlement Ethnic Conflictw
(Prej udbe) J

 

Hispanic
White
Emigration

 

 

Affordable
Housin g

 

 

Latino Concentration
(Ethnic Transformation)

 

 

 

 

Figure 26. Cyclical Model Of Ethnic Transformation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q01

Iwc
rep
CdU
clu
we
affl
P0]
stn
int

C0?

 

136

Community Economic Development

It was hypothesized that the economic conditions of places could be divided into
two distinct scales, one representing wealth (income, income from wealth), and another
representing economic health (lower poverty and unemployment levels, higher levels of
education). Factor analysis, however, showed that all of the socio-economic variables
clustered together as measures of the overall economic health of places. Therefore, they
were analyzed as one group. These economic conditions where hypothesized to have been
affected by agricultural restructuring, job and wage growth, immigration, non-Latino
population growth, prior levels of community capital, community size, and changing age
structure in the community. Each are discussed below, followed by an analysis and
integration of the theories hypothesized to explain both ethnic transformation and

community economic development.

Agricultural Restructuring. Job and Wage Growth, and Immigration

Agricultural restructuring was not found to affect community economic
development, although this was proposed in Hypotheses 2.1 and 2.2. However, regional
job and wage growth were predictive of community economic well-being. Places that were
located in regions experiencing job and wage growth experienced higher levels of economic
development. As hypothesized, the effects of these variables varied by the extent of
foreign-born population growth, as described in the next paragraph. It was also
hypothesized that the effects of job and wage growth on economic development would vary
by the extent of non-Latino pOpulation growth, but this was not found to be the case.

It was hypothesized (Hypothesis 2.3) that places which experienced more growth

in foreign~bom population experienced lower levels of community development.

[.3

 

 

 

137

Controlling for regional job growth, this was true. However, the effect of foreign-born
population growth on community development was moderated by the growth of
employment and wages in the area. Places that experienced growth in both immigration
and in jobs experienced the highest degree of economic development. This is consistent
with studies which have found that immigration loosens human resource constraints,
allowing for economic growth, as well as providing a market for local business expansion.
Furthermore, job growth reduces the negative economic impacts generally associated with
immigration - increased job competition and wage depression leading to poverty,
unemployment and low wages. From the opposite perspective, places that experienced
growth in foreign born pOpulation without job growth experienced declining economic
conditions among residents. This explains contradictory findings in previous studies
which have shown that immigration can both increase and decrease economic development.

The interaction between wage growth and immigration was in the opposite direction
of that between job growth and immigration. In places that experienced both growing
wages and growing immigration, immigration reduced the beneficial impacts of wage
growth, while wage growth amplified the negative impacts of immigration. This indicates
increasing inequality between U.S.-bom and foreign-born residents. Wage growth did not
“trickle down” to the lowest-paid workers (i.e., immigrants). Furthermore, higher wages
among native workers allowed them to more easily to move away from places with larger

foreign-born populations, further reducing economic development in Mexican towns.

U.S.-Bom Latino and Anglo Pogulation Growth

 

Hypotheses 2.4 and 2.5 proposed that Latino pOpulation growth would be
associated with lower levels of economic development, while non-Latino population
growth would be associated with higher levels of economic development. Only the second
hypothesis was confirmed. Latino population growth itself did not increase or decrease
economic development, controlling for growth in foreign-born population. On average, the

economic position of U.S.~bom Latinos is between that of Anglos and immigrants, as their

 

 

 

 

 

c01
err
La
do

me

Q

by
de

prl
hi;

[)6

hi.

 

 

138
occupation may range from highly-paid business people, professionals and labor
contractors, to poorly paid seasonal workers in packing houses or service industry
employees. Non-Latinos tend to be wealthier community members, so growth in non-
Latino population brings economic growth, while loss of non-Latinos brings economic
decline. This trend was noted by people in rural California, and this is one of the reasons

many people preferred to live in places with higher proportions of Anglos.

Financial, Human, and Social Capital

Places that started out, in 1980, with higher levels of income and education were
hypothesized to have experienced high levels of community development over the next
decade in Hypotheses 2.6 and 2.7, respectively. Income levels in 1980 were not found to
predict economic development over the next decade. However, human capital levels were
highly predictive of community economic development. Places in which a larger
percentage of the adult population had at least a high school education in 1980 experienced
more economic development from 1980 to 1990 than did places with smaller percentages of
high school graduates.

Since foreign-born Latinos are much less likely to have a high school education
than are U.S.-bom individuals, this means that communities with larger percentages of
farmworkers in 1980 experienced lower levels of community development than other
places. Therefore, this could be an indicator of underclass conditions in some places.
Places in which few adults have high school degrees probably have concurrent problems
with low-incomes and poverty, requiring a greater demand on the community for social
services and programs that address poverty-related problems in crime prevention/control,
education, and health care. However, because mean wages in 1980 were not associated
with community development, the effect of human capital cannot be attributed solely to
greater demands of a low-income population. As discussed in the qualitative section,
places in which relatively fewer residents have higher levels of education have fewer

educated residents from which community leadership can develop. They also have fewer

 

 

 

 

 

resi

bus

prc
ver
h01
ec<
lex
su:

or;

--_-.-_.._ ---. ‘-- ..K'JL - «- via. w aha-4%.. .n‘ ‘ '3'

139
residents with the knowledge and networks who can establish more successful local
businesses.

It was also proposed that places with high levels of social capital experienced a
larger degree of economic development, although a quantitative hypothesis was not
proposed since such data were not available. Qualitative interviews showed that both
vertical social capital (networks between communities and higher levels of government) and
horizontal social capital (networks within communities) were influential in community
economic development. Local government officials who had made connections with higher
levels of government were more successful at bringing in grants for their community in
such areas as housing, unemployment, and crime prevention. Communities in which
organizations such as government, business, and the schools cooperated were able to
produce facilities and programs for the community that were absent in other places. In
places with overt conflict, it was difficult to execute projects for enhancing community life
and economic development.

Social capital between people of differing economic and ethnic groups also affected
human capital attainment of residents. Children of farmworkers who made connections
with middle-class or more highly educated role models or mentors.(either as children or as
adults) achieved higher levels of education than their peers, and became actively involved
as community leaders. However, because inter-economic-group networks are rare, peOple
in farmworker communities were less likely to receive training and mentorship in
community leadership, so that places that lost their middle-class residents experienced a

sudden decline in community leaders.

S ize of Place and Age Structure

The size of places in 1980 did not predict economic development as proposed in
Hypothesis 2.8. However, as economic development was measured through economic
characteristics of residents (i.e., income, poverty, education), rather than the Characteristics

of city governments or businesses (i.e., city revenues, number of businesses), it seems

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

like
Iha
dis
bUS

les

6C1

CO'

CC

de

pc

'5‘

 

' 'w'k—n we.._~ -‘ a! 1’ ‘-
_. ..__... --‘ . :w ‘-

140
likely that larger places might have experienced more growth in revenues from businesses
that offer goods and services to the public. People in all of the communities under study
discussed problems competing with larger cities for such markets. However, other
businesses, such as manufacturing, home-work, and wholesale firms, might have been
less likely to locate in larger cities due to greater costs in land and taxes, off-setting other
types of business growth. Future research might investigate this. Regardless, the
economic status of residents did not change at different rates in larger versus smaller
communities.

Growth in the percentage of children in the community was also unrelated to overall
economic development (Hypothesis 2.9). However, separate analyses of community
development measures did reveal that places with larger gains in the percentage of residents
who were under the age of 18 experienced smaller income growth and larger growth in

poverty rates.

Integrated Theoretical Model of Ethnic Transformation and Economic DeveIOpment

This dissertation proposed to develop an integrated theoretical model of the causes
and consequences of ethnic transformation and economic development in rural communities
in California. Given the complexity of the processes occurring, this model is presented in
various components, showing the processes affecting: 1) foreign-born and U.S.-born
Latino settlement in communitiesf 2) the development of internal core/periphery relations or
uneven economic development; and 3) the economic development of communities.

World Systems theory was posed to provide a macro-framework within which
economic-rational theories would articulate more specific processes. From a World
Systems perspective, the continual grth of foreign-born Latinos in California was
explained as a result of the uneven economic status between Mexico and the United States,
and the history of labor migration between the two countries. Immigration is increasing
because of the lack of economic alternatives in Mexico, in the context of labor migration

networks, and the restructuring of labor in the United States to take advantage of the

 

 

 

 

 

 

pl

m— 1“

141
economic inequalities between the countries. Legal distinctions between workers from
outside of the United States, as well as ethnic distinctions based on the historical legacy of
labor migration between the United States and Mexico, allow for differential exploitation of
workers based on their national origin, and their documentation status. Other studies have
noted the importance of wage differentials within the context of historical patterns of
migration for explaining individuals’ migration decisions (e.g., see Massey and Espinosa
1995). This study supports these findings. Qualitative interviews revealed universal
expectations that immigration will continue, despite increased competition for agricultural
jobs in California, as long as economic opportunities are even lower in Mexico than they
are in the United States. For this reason, immigration is seen as a perpetual source of

population growth for rural communities.

 

However, while core—peripheral differences between Mexico/Central America and

the United States explain the continuation of immigration, they do not explain uneven

 

patterns of foreign-born population growth and changing ethnic composition within the
United States. It was hypothesized that neoclassical economic models, including theories
on social capital and agricultural restructuring, could predict such patterns, in that people
move to places where they can maximize their economic opportunities. It is in this manner
that core-periphery relations between nations are recreated as internal core-periphery
relations. Individuals from the periphery move to the core out of economic necessity, or to
gain economic advantage. Their place of settlement is based on the economic conditions of
various places. This includes opportunities for higher-paying, more stable jobs than
available elsewhere, but it also includes intangible forms of economic support, such as
social capital provided through networks, and opportunities to gain human67 and political

capital.68

—_

67 Some immigrants noted the better educational opportunities for their children in the United States and in
rural areas as one motivating factor in settling in their place 0f residence.

68 By political capital I am referring to Opportunities to acquire residency and citizenship status in the
United States. This can be seen as a form of social capital in that it involves membership in a group

 

 

 

 

 

 

CX

dll

fii

142
In fact, at the community level, intangible forms of capital were found to be more
important for predicting population growth than were tangible forms of capital. Contrary to
expectations, regional job and wage growth, including growth in agricultural employment,
did not predict population growth at the community level. Although individual people

move to areas where they have employment Opportunities and social connections, these

 

findings suggest that their specific place of settlement depends on other factors, such as
perceptions of community life and the type of housing that is available. Job and wage
growth explain regional migration patterns, but are less informative at the community level.

Nevertheless, several economic-maximization variables did predict population
growth. Social capital theory, for example, predicts that social networks influence
migration as people move to places where they can receive economic advantage (e.g.,
information, financial assistance) from people whom they know. As noted in qualitative
interviews, people move to regions where they have friends and relatives, both for
emotional and financial support, and because they have heard of opportunities for jobs and
housing through them.

Agricultural intensification, representing changes in the gag of employment
available, rather than the quantity, also predicted Latino and foreign-born population
growth. The availability of year-round employment in an area makes it possible and
economically-rational for people to settle in that area. This employment variable might have
been significant when others were not because it represents employment targeted to a
specific group -- foreign-born Latino workers, and because the workers attracted to these
jobs have few settlement options due to their low-incomes. Furthermore, many U.S.-bom
Latinos had greater economic opportunities in places experiencing Latino immigration.
Those people with networks in the immigrant community who had the human and financial

capital to take advantage of the growing immigrant population were able to deve10p

_

(legally documented US. residents and citizens). However, this form of capital has also been distinguished
as a particular form of capital that allows access to financial resources (see Rumbaut 1995).

 

 

 

143
profitable businesses or careers.

Housing availability also predicted population growth. People moved to places
where housing was available in the price range and neighborhood that they desired among
all ethnic groups.

Therefore, while Dependency Theory explains growing and continuing Latino
immigration to the United States, economic-rational factors -- the availability of year round
jobs for immigrant workers, social networks, and affordable housing explain which
communities experienced Latino settlement. At the same time, Dependency Theory allows
for the interpretation of these economic—rational factors in the context of the political and
social divisions between people. Foreign-bom Latinos are forced to work at increasingly
unstable jobs in “core” areas, such as California, because of the political divisions that have
been set up between countries, and the varying levels of documentation status obtained by
workers. These restrictions limit their political and social capital and, therefore, their
options for jobs and housing. U.S.—born Latinos are primarily the children of foreign-born
Latinos, and have grown up as ethnic minorities whose parents were constrained in the
jobs and housing available and were less able to give them opportunities for higher levels
of education and development of social networks with members of high-SES groups.

They are, therefore, also limited in their economic opportunities by their limited educational
attainment, their lack of social connections with high-SES individuals and groups, and
greater difficulties in society based on their ethnic status (i.e., others’ prejudice, and their
own unease at cultural and economic differences). However, many U.S.—born Latinos are
also in a unique social position between U.S.-bom non-Latinos and foreign-born Latinos,
allowing for economic options unavailable to Anglos or foreign-born Latinos. Figure 27
displays these complex dynamics, separating national, regional, and local community

factors that influence the process of ethnic transformation.

hr “." “‘J‘.»

 

 

   

 
  
 
   
 

REGIONAL

Job and Wage ..
Growth '

Foreign-80m

Viiniri‘o‘iNAUl ii ¥iFLO0AL

  
 
  
      
   
  
  

 
   
  
  

    
  
  
   
   
 

" Networks between established ‘ L
Latino residents and newcomers

Uneven
' . _. _, . Economic

Historical 3,, LDivefpment:
Development “ aln- merica

  
   
    
    

   

    
   
  
   

 

0f UHS - Latlno a - ‘ 'ili . 5 -
Latin lmmioration Foreign-30m U.S.-§om
‘ Latino Latino
American Settlement Settlement
Economic _

 

 

 

 
 

Relations

 

Housing
Availability

   

 

  

 

Figure 27. Integrated Model of Latino Settlement

While ethnic transformation in rural California is generally blamed on growing
immigration, the permanent settlement of foreign-born workers in rural communities
actually has only a small direct effect on community ethnic composition. Native residents
make up a much larger proportion of the population, so the movement of native residents
has a larger effect on ethnic composition. However, immigration indirectly affects
community ethnic composition by prompting the emigration of established residents.
Immigration brings people from the periphery into communities in the core, recreating core~

periphery relations within core communities. The unequal economic status between

 

community residents encourages exodus of wealthier community members as they seek to
minimize their part in the economic and social costs associated with the growing low—
income population. This leads to a partial recreation of core-periphery differences between
communities, as well as within them. As those people who profit from the low—income
population move to wealthier areas, the economically vulnerable population becomes more
concentrated in poor areas. As predicted by Dependency Theory, the poorer places

(farmworker towns) become increasingly poor relative to wealthier places because the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

peep]

\veah

Stan:
have
COllll
imm
recei
towr
espe
com
Lan
ethr.
beir
P0P

resi

moi
resi
resi
fan
bor
P0]
cor

CO]

145
people who live in these towns contribute to the economic development of people in the
wealthier places.

Over time, core/periphery relations between Mexico/Central America and the United
States, and the migration of workers to the United States from Mexico/Central America,
have developed an ethnic/economic structure in which Anglos tend to be wealthier
community members, U.S.-bom Latinos, who are mostly the descendants of Mexican
immigrants, hold middle economic positions, and the poorest community members are
recent immigrants. Therefore, when wealthier community members leave farmworker
towns, farmworker towns become more Latino because wealthier community members,
especially those who leave, are more likely to be Anglo. This leaves farmworker
communities increasingly economically and ethnically distinct, as pockets of low-income
Latino population. The important role of Anglo population in determining both community
ethnicity and economic health explains why correlations of community economic well—
being variables with community ethnicity are stronger than those with the percentage of the
population that is foreign-born. Places that are more Anglo are less Latino, and they have
residents who are wealthier, on average, than residents of more-Latino communities.

The movement of wealthier community members out of farmworker towns is
moderated, however, by the social networks that established residents have with new
residents. It is partially because of the lack of social ties between U.S.- and foreign-born
residents that U.S.-bom residents are moving to places with smaller percentages of
farmworkers, exacerbating economic and ethnic differences between places. Those U .S.-
born residents who have family and friendship networks with the growing foreign-born
population are more likely to stay in farmworker communities. They not only feel
comfortable with the new pOpulation, but they also may feel obligated to stay in the
community. Many U.S.-born Latinos who lived in Mexican towns noted that the
responsibility they felt towards their family and community kept them there, despite

economic opportunities elsewhere. Mexicans score particularly high on measures of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fami
Thes
restr
offer
purs
indii
run
me
than

COIT.

 

 

Fig

soc
pla

Eq]
ha‘

 

146
familism-—the sense of obligation and orientation one has to the family (Rumbaut 1995).
These feelings of obligation highlight one way in which social capital can simultaneously
restrict, as well as enhance, the economic mobility of individuals. Tight family networks
offer economic and emotional support, but more successful members are restricted from
pursuing opportunities that could interfere with their family responsibilities.69 While the
individual’s economic mobility is restrained, the family and community benefit by the
retention of wealthier community members. Figure 28 displays the processes leading to
uneven development within and between places. This diagram is substantially different
than the other models presented in this dissertation as the final outcome variable is neither

community economic development nor community ethnic transformation.

 

      
     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, , ,. _ - {V ’ ' . REGIONAL
LOCAL ocial Networks Between Established ‘
- , Residents & Newcomers (Core &
Foreign- , Uneven ,_ . .
Born 3f”? Development _.Penphery Res’denf’l
Population (Internal ’ Increased ,5 ~
Growth Core- ' ‘5 Economic Costs Loss Of ,_ Uneven
——P Periphery) —.—-b for Established Wealthier ‘ « ' Development
F‘ (See " / Vlfilhrnn . (Core) (Core)* Between
Igure 27) I, 1, Communities ‘ Residents fin: Residents ' " Communities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 28. Integrated Model of the Development of Internal Core—Periphery Relationships

The economic differences between places are amplified by differences in mean
social and human capital held by community residents. Social Capital Theory predicts that
places with greater connections among community members should have larger, and more
equal, economic development. As predicted, in places in which the governmental leaders

have ties with the farmworker community, leaders are more likely to invest in programs

 

69 See Portes and Sensenbrenner (1993) for a more thorough discussion of the contradictory nature of social

 

 

 

 

 

that
How
capi
the i
capi
witl
con

soci

pro
dec
cor

CCC

edi
dei

147
that help low income community members and encourage even economic development.
However, this is just one form of horizontal social capital: intra-class horizontal social
capital. Horizontal social capital, in general, can be high in wealthy communities without
the involvement of the poorest community residents. Higher levels of horizontal social
capital are associated with greater overall economic development since leaders in towns
with broad connections among community organizations can more easily initiate
community projects. In places in which conflict is high (e.g., because of large gaps in
social networks among different segments of the community), economic development is
impaired because community leaders have more difficulty implementing projects. Social
and political divisions between groups based on ethnicity (Latino versus Anglo), place of
birth (US-born versus foreign-born), citizenship status, and occupation (business leader,
professional, or farmworker/packing house employee) legitimize exclusion from shared
decision~mal<ing. As communities go through ethnic and economic transformations
conflict rises between these different groups, resulting in more difficulty for coordinated
economic planning.

Places with relatively higher levels of human capital (i.e.,places with high levels of
education among community residents) also show a greater degree’of economic
deve10pment. Economic development is substantially lower in places in which larger
percentages of residents lack a high school education. These places have fewer people with
sufficient knowledge of the economic and political system who can emerge as successful
business and political leaders. Human capital levels are, of course, affected by growth of
foreign-born population, and loss of wealthy and middle-class population. However, they
are also related to the degree of horizontal social capital in the community. Greater
connections between youth and community leaders encourage attainment of higher levels of
education, while social/family ties encourage residents with high school and college

education to remain in their home community.

F

capital.

.f;...."-. nu ~..-~._ ‘. ‘ ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

of;

 

 

148
As expected, regional job and wage growth also affected the economic development

of places, moderated by the extent of foreign-born population growth.

 

      

 

 

 

  

   

 

   

 

REGIONAL
Job and I .. “
Wage Loss olMiddIe- ‘ > ., , , - . r ‘
Growth t: Class and ‘ ' ’ VertécaIISclicral , - '
zit?- Wealthy (Core) ' - ' increasing uneven apia , Community
W Residents \ economic relations V W ' an, Economic
(See . within Human Capital {,5 Development
Figure 28) communities/ . V ’- V it}
£323, , , \ lnternaICore- HorizontaISocral , e
Grthh in oreign- Periphery ' , Capital g”: M
Born and Latino . . (See Figure 28) » ,2 Intra-Class . , Economic
(Periphery) 1Horrzontal Social j Development
Residents “W“ '” - i ‘ Capital W _ , ..
(See Figure 27) ~ ’ ‘ I
( Vim“

 

Figure 29. Integrated Model of Community Economic Development

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gro
alrr
Asi
"M
cor
the
pre

COl

be:
wa
inr

an

an
CS

CC

. .__ . .. . - - .-- . -_, ‘ ’. .: . . V
-L-an-u- L -““ “Wham” W'; ."" .4, _,- _ _ . -- -

149
The Future of Rural Communities in California

The Latino population in most of California's rural communities will continue to
grow throughout the next decade. Places that are currently 80 to 90 percent Latino will be
almost 100 percent Latino in the near future. Residents who are not Latino will mostly be
Asian. Non-Hispanic white residents are not moving into communities that are considered
"Mexican towns," even if they find employment in these places. Ethnically-mixed
communities will also experience growing percentages of Latinos over the next decade, but
the ethnic change will be slower than it has been in those communities that are now
predominantly Hispanic. N on-Latinos continue to move into the ethnically-mixed
communities, along with Latinos.

There is reason to be pessimistic about the future of Califomia’s colonias as they
become increasingly composed of larger percentages of low-income residents. In many
ways Califomia’s rural colonias are coming to resemble impoverished urban “barrios” and
inner city underclass areas ( e.g., see Manta 1976 and Wilson 1987). Manta (1976) makes
an analogy between Third World underdeveloped colonies and large city Chicano barrios.
He suggests that economic exploitation is the cause of economic underdevelopment in the
barrio, an exploitation created by the “forced or self—imposed physical and psychological
segregation (p. 35).” The surrounding socioeconomic system does nothing to correct for
discrimination and exploitation which increase over time with greater concentration.
Wilson’s theory of underclass formation is similar, in that he sees continuous immigration
as a threat to all minority group members through increased competition for jobs, housing,
and services, and by reinforcement of stereotypes perceived by dominant “outsiders.” In
essence, colonias are places where cheap raw material (labor) is extracted from the
community and used by agribusiness in the production of goods and services. The
outmigration of wealthier community members leads to increasing isolation of the poorest

members of the Latino community

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

incr
ecor
con
as it
beti
sun
go
low
we;

tax

per
in c
pro'
Fur
intr
fan
fan
mo‘
and

incr

“we“; Lfif'.".“.-I .;: “Liz-- f....-..:..... M .- .

150

As in urban underclass areas, the population in Mexican towns is becoming
increasingly ethnically and economically homogenous, consisting primarily of the most
economically disadvantaged members of the Latino community. As in urban areas, this
concentration has as much to do with the emigration of middle class and wealthy residents
as it does with the immigration of poorer residents. There are also geographic similarities
between Mexican towns and inner cities. Economically poor inner cities are often
surrounded by wealthier suburbs from which they get little tax revenue. Similarly, wealthy
growers, and middle-class residents who like the country, live on ranches around Mexican
towns, while poorer people live inside the city limits. While the county gets taxes from the
wealthier people, the Mexican towns do not get property taxes, and they receive little sales

tax revenue, since people generally shop in larger communities.

 

Therefore, there is reason to fear that social problems associated with urban

poverty, such as crime, family disorganization, and overburdened schools, will also grow ‘ :

 

in colonias. While this study did not focus on these issues, there was evidence that these
problems are becoming a greater concern in Mexican towns than in the past.70

Furthermore, because the income potential and the stability of farrnwork are declining,
intragenerational economic mobility may be smaller among currentflgenerations of
farmworkers than among previous generations. Given the increasing isolation of
farmworkers from middle-class schools, resources, and networks, intergenerational
mobility may also decline. If so, farmworker communities could face increasing frustration

and conflict among youth, and between U.S.-bom and foreign—bom residents, leading to

increasing problems in community development.

70 e.g., Gangs exist in all of the communities under study, but at this point they are predominantly “wanna-

be” gangs rather than city gangs. Interviews suggested that a substantial number of families were

experiencing the equivalent of single-parent families as one spouse migrated for work or abandoned the

family. In the schools, there was an over-representation of children from farmworker towns in “home

Study,” a program in which students get little contact with teachers, and from which only a small percent
uate.

 

 

 

thei
kno
may
will
plat
pen
ethi

stat

ecc
Me
cor

ad(

lie

60

thr

CC

151

At the same time, rural places also differ from inner-city neighborhoods in both
their size and their governance. Because they are smaller, people may be more likely to
know their neighbors and look out for each other. Because most are self-goveming, they
may be better able to develop programs to address residents’ needs than are neighborhoods
within larger, more heterogeneous, cities. There may also be advantages for Latinos in
places that are mostly Latino. While these places may be poorer than those with a greater
percentage of Anglos, Latino residents may face less direct prejudice, there may be less
ethnic conflict in the community, and Latinos may have greater opportunities for higher

status positions in local government, social organizations, and businesses.

Rising Latino Power: Implications for the Economic Development of Colonias

There is hope that as ethnic transitions stabilize and political conflict settles,
economic development will improve in Mexican towns. As second and third generation
Mexican-Americans increasingly become economic and political leaders in Latino
communities, the needs of farmworkers and other, low-income Latinos may be better
addressed so that inequality is decreased while economic development grows. However,
given continuing immigration from Mexico/Latino America, the continuing dependence of
Mexican towns on the unstable income of farmworkers, and the continual loss of more
highly-educated community members, Mexican towns may also become increasingly
isolated, economically vulnerable low-income areas.

In general, economic inequality between ethnic groups widens with increasing
minority group concentration (Frisbie and Neidert 1977). However, it has been
hypothesized that increasing minority group concentration can have positive, as well as
negative, effects on the economic status of minority group members. Positive and negative
economic outcomes of growing minority population include: ”increasing minority power,
through which minority community members achieve protective legislation and policies for

members of their ethnic group; 2) overflow of minority group members into higher

economic positions, as they develop enclave economies or fill in positions vacated by

 

 

 

 

 

the

set

sta

of

bil

56¢

10‘

re]

0U

lei

thi
W‘

CC

 

2‘ -.. -.~ .. ...., 1..
——w-- ‘ht—u. .;,_.,.‘pu~¢.-_'~~ -

152
majority group members; 3) increasing discrimination by the majority ethnic population, as
they become defensive of their own position; and 4) economic subordination of the
minority group, resulting from increased competition for jobs and resources within a
segmented labor market (Tienda and Lii 1987). Each of these processes has occurred in
rural California. Continuing immigration from Mexico/Latin America has brought about
stagnant wages and increasing unemployment among low-income Latino workers, a sign
of economic subordination. Defensive discrimination can be seen in the fight against
bilingual education and government services for foreign-born residents, as well as the
movement of middle-class residents out of Mexican towns. Economic overflow can be
seen through Latino possession of professional positions and businesses in both Mexican
towns and Anglo/mixed communities. Latinos have also achieved greater political power,
winning battles for services for Latino immigrants and their families, and achieving Latino
representation in areas of political importance.

The question arises whether the positive effects of increasing Latino concentration
outweigh the negative effects. At this point, places that are ethnically more Latino are much
less affluent than are places that are less Latino, and their quality of life is perceived to be
much lower than that of ethnically-mixed places. Increasing Latino concentration has led to
greater isolation from middle—class resources. These disadvantages may diminish with
decreasing conflict as communities become almost completely Latino. Places which are
mostly Latino may become better places to live, especially for immigrant farmworkers, if
the new economic and political power structure better meets their needs. However, this
will be difficult for most places, as discussed in the following sections on rising Latino

economic and political power.

(I

 

 

 

 

Be
co
to
bu

SU

cl:

be
se

CC

'T- 1'2: ‘. ;~‘;.‘-‘vnipv.to _ :H w—i .e. -~ »

153

Rising Latino Economic Power
The most important population in this area, which nobody realizes, is

the 2nd and 3rd generation Hispanics. They have filled in the middle
class. They're the business owners, the insurance people. They ’re

friendly with both the whites and the immigrants (Anglo Male Anglo
town resident).
Mexican-Americans are regarded as the rising middle-class in rural California.
Because they have higher levels of education, and a knowledge of the culture of the

community, they are uniquely advantaged to develop businesses in farmworker

 

communities. There is hope that the quality of life in Mexican towns will improve as
businesses develop to meet the needs of the growing foreign-born population, and as
successful business owners choose to remain in the community in which they grew up. In
general, interviews showed that business people in Mexican towns (both Anglo and Latino)
were more likely to live in the community in which they worked than were professional
people. Middle-class Latinos were more likely to live in Mexican towns than were middle-
class Anglos. As more Latinos become successful business owners and professionals, the

middle-class pOpulation of Mexican towns might also rise, improving the econonric well-

 

being of the community. Furthermore, as Latinos become successful entrepreneurs, and as
second and third generation Latinos take professional positions in farmworker

communities, there will be a rising class of peOple with roots in the farmworker community

 

 

 

who can push for greater services for foreign-born residents, and who can serve as role
models to younger generations.

However, in most colonias it may be overly optimistic to expect a
rising middle-class to develop and restore economic viability. Given the low-incomes of
most community members, it may be unrealistic to hope for the development of many
highly-profitable firms. All small communities are finding it increasingly difficult to
maintain local businesses as people commute farther distances for goods and services.
Because they serve a smaller clientele, prices are generally higher in small towns. In places

with a substantial middle-class population, people may choose to support local businesses

 

 

 

 

by
5hr

[65

pri

err
bu
be

bu

WE

C0

CC

154
by paying higher prices. In Exeter, for example, established residents talked about
shOpping in town whenever they could, in order to support local businesses. However,
residents Who face tight economic constraints do not have the option of paying the higher
prices in local stores. Therefore, businesses in places with more low-income residents
might face tougher competition from larger cities.

Saenz, Rochin, Hampton, and Calo (1995) found that rural Latino self-employment
was highest in areas that were the most impoverished, and hypothesized that self-
employment was a response to a lack of economic alternatives. They also found that
businesses were less profitable in places with greater concentrations of Latinos. It might be
because of the low profitability potential in colonias that more Latinos are able to open
businesses, as there is less competition with chain stores and larger corporations for the
less profitable market. One businessman in a Mexican town mentioned that little capital
was needed for business development there because of the lack of competition with
corporate chains that exists in larger cities. However, if the profitability of new businesses
is restricted, there is less hope for these businesses to improve the economic climate of the
community.

Latin American immigrants get together on business ventures more than
Mexican immigrants, same as Asian people (Male Latino Mexican town
city employee).

It is also doubtful that colonias can achieve an ethnic enclave economy. Enclave
economies rely on specific forms of social capital within the ethnic community such as
bounded solidarity (group-oriented, rather than self-oriented behavior) and enforceable
trust (sanctions given by the community to ensure group-oriented behavior). These forms
of social capital emerge more often in communities in which members face strong
discrimination, where it is difficult to return to the host country, and where the community
is resource-rich (Portes and Sensenbrenner 1993). In Mexican towns, most people are
Latino, so there is less direct discrimination. Many Mexican immigrants return regularly to

Mexico because of its close proximity. And, on average, Mexican communities have fewer

 

 

 

eco:
coir
son
gro

the:

0th
sat

C01

155
economic rewards to offer members than do other ethnic groups. If the population of some
colonias becomes increasingly composed of immigrants from Central America or Asia,
some enclave economies may develop. However, it is doubtful that such enclaves will
grow among the vast majority of Mexican towns, given the lack of elements that lead to
their development.

To the contrary, Mexican-American businesses are often very competitive with each
other. In both Woodlake and Cutler/Orosi, people complained about business owners who
sabotaged other local businesses, and who refused to participate in the local chamber of
commerce and in local initiatives for enhancing business success.71 It is possible that these
business owners resent the members of the chamber of commerce for personal reasons
(e. g., they associate them with the economically dominant class), and that other businesses
have put obstacles in their way. Regardless, the business viability of the community as a
whole is lower than in places where businesses cooperate. In contrast, in Exeter, business
owners were trying to patppgt other businesses that offered the same type of products,

hoping that a larger number of like businesses would attract more people to shop there.

 

7‘ “If you go down there, for example, with the chamber of commerce and ask that guy who owns that
market to repaint the building, he won’t do it. He says ‘I don’t care.’ Well, you’re hurting business.

He says ‘good. Because when they leave I’ll buy them out cheaper.’ We had a honible time over there
with people that went in and opened a flower shop. Flower shops have six, seven holidays a year where
they make 80% of their profits. Every one of those holidays that came along, the guy that owns the service
station across the street, for example, would rent his parking lot to street vendors that would sell the same
product at half the price, right across the street” (Male Anglo county official).

 

 

156

Furthermore, economic mobility among Latinos also does not ensure decreasing
inequality. The most successful entrepreneurs in Mexican towns--labor contractors,
landlords and check cashers-—have become rich at the expense of the most vulnerable
workers. While most people admit that contractors, landlords and check cashers provide a
needed service, and they admire their economic success, they complain that their wealth
comes out of the desperation of the poorest residents.”-

There is also no guarantee that the most successful Latino entrepreneurs will remain
in the community where their business is located. Like other, wealthier, community
members businesses owners often choose to move to wealthier communities or ranch areas
as it becomes economically feasible.

Therefore, despite the movement of Latinos into higher economic positions in rural
communities, it is doubtful that Mexican towns can catch up to the economic position of
more-Anglo places. The low incomes of residents make it more difficult to sustain
businesses. Those businesses that are most successful often increase economic inequality
by taking advantage of the vulnerability of the economically-poorest residents. There is
also no indication that colonias can foster successful enclave economies due to the

particular conditions of Mexican immigration. Latino “overflow” into important economic

positions is occurring, but the economic prospects of Mexican towns remain poor.

_—_

72 e.g., “The contractors are crooks. People pay $4 for a ride to work. But that's fair, because it would cost
more than that to drive yourself if the work is far away” (Male Latino Orange Cove resident). “I've gone
into houses full of mattresses-- 40 men in one place. A lot of the renters are illegals and they don't want to
make waves. They pay $100-150 per mattress. Then they have to pay for meals, whether they want
them or not, transportation, check cashing... They get taken advantage of and there's nothing they can do
about it” (Male Anglo Mexican town city employee)-

 

-“-~fifi 3551+..- — o A;

157

Rising Latino Political Power

(Anglo city) has pockets of poverty that have been ignored. That
hasn ’t changed at all. I think the poor people in (this city) here
definitely receive more attention to their needs. We respect what
they have to say about what they like in the city, and they set the agenda
for the city. Cutler/Orosi, they belong to the county. The citizens
don’t have any voice. They don ’t even understand that their civil rights
exist. The campesinos there, the low income people, they don’t know
the county supervisors. (And you don ’t think the supervisors reach out
to them much?) No. You’ve got to have a very active, vocal group...
(Male Latino Mexican town city ofi‘icial).

Despite the lower levels of wealth and income in Mexican towns, they hold some
advantages for low-income Latinos. Increasing concentration of farmworkers, and people
from farmworker backgrounds, has brought about increased power among people with
“farmworker” interests, as opposed to the traditional power of “rancher” and “business”
interests. Policies for low-income, Spanish-speaking community members are more likely
to be initiated in Mexican towns because: 1) immigrants are more likely to be recognized as
legitimate community members; 2) community leaders are more likely to understand the
needs of the low-income population; 3) there is a larger base of support for pro-fannworker
policies; and 4) the need for pro—farmworker policies is greater than in mixed-income
communities.

The power structure looked at (this city) as a labor camp. I think
they were happy that people would always be happy just to have jobs
working on the crops. And keeping people ignorant, so they wouldn’t
know there were other opportunities and never feel it. So, you would
always have a labor force. The mentality is still there (Male Latino
Mexican town city official).

Traditionally, farmworkers have been seen as “guests” (i.e., guestworkers) in
communities rather than as permanent residents-people that could leave if they were
unhappy with their conditions. This perspective still exists, and can be seen in efforts to
discourage immigration by decreasing the benefits and services available to immigrants.
There is a belief that immigrants are satisfied with low-income unstable employment

because conditions are so much worse in Mexico. However, while many established

residents may believe that farmworkers are satisfied with their low incomes, farmworkers

 

 

 

C0

of

~TC~107btflfV

 

 

 

 

158

who have been in the United States for many years actually compare their economic
condition with that of other people in the United States. Many feel frustrated by their lack
of economic mobility. From a farmworker perspective, the fact that economic conditions
are worse in Mexico does not make conditions in the United States seem ideal, but means
that there is little choice but to accept them. Many people interviewed for this study
compared the position of farmworkers to those of slaves, complaining that established
residents have a plantation mentality--they want bodies to do cheap labor, but they don’t
want to address the needs of people who do that work.73 In places where the community
leaders are, themselves, from farmworker families, foreign-born residents are more likely
to be seen as a permanent part of the community.74

Community leaders who come from the farmworker community are also more
likely to understand the needs of the foreign-born population, and to develop unique
solutions to their problems. People without connections to the farmworker community are
less likely to understand the ways in which farmworkers feel they are blocked from
becoming full community members. In the Latino communities under study, for example,
city and school staff were more likely to be bilingual than were staff in the Anglo/mixed
communities. This made it much easier for people to get permits, pay bills, or discuss
problems with city employees, and for parents to discuss the situation of their children with
school staff. Many adults discussed efforts to begin or sustain recreational and social
programs for the children in their community. Those with farmworker interests tried to

plan activities that involved minimal costs to parents. During the economically-devastating

 

 

73 “It reminds me, do you remember the old movies of the slaves in the south” (Male Latino Orange Cove
city official)? “Remember how they brought the ships full of black people to work. That’s how I see it.
They want it for Mexicans but not for any other nationality. They want them to come and work, or get
out. And that’s not right because they’re human beings” (Female Latina Mexican town resident).

74 e. g., One of the elementary school principals in a Mexican town remarked that the old school staff
believed that children of farmworkers did not need to attain high levels of education because they would just
become farmworkers or packing house employees themselves. They did not view their educational needs as
they would the needs of other children: “The old staff asked what’s wrong with the kids becoming
farmworkers. I said why not prepare them for whatever they want to be. If they want to be farmworkers,
Why not be well-educated farm workers?”

 

 

 

in
m«
de
fa:

CC

 

.._ ._...._ A _. r._ 4.5.... . .ru-.\-J"’ -- _' .-.o.-

159
freeze of 1990, housing deteriorated faster as more people “doubled-up” and had less
money to maintain their homes. Because of the greater problems with housing
deterioration, some people felt it was time to crack down on housing codes. Leaders with a
farmworker perspective, however, felt this was not the time to begin enforcing housing
codes, since that would only increase people’s economic problems. They were more aware
of the difficulties that people faced in low-income families.

Growth of farmworker population also brings the needs of farmworker families to
the attention of non-farmworkers. It is not just children of farmworkers who are initiating
programs for farmworkers in Mexican towns. There are Anglos and Latinos from other
backgrounds who have become aware of the needs of foreign-born residents and are
actively trying to improve services to them.75 Because foreign-born residents make up a
large share of the population in Mexican towns, their concerns have a higher priority, and
people of all backgrounds who want to address their concerns have greater support.

Still, a Latino majority in a rural community does not necessarily mean that low-
income Latinos are well represented. While they have more voice than in Anglo
communities, many farmworkers feel disenfranchised from middle-class Latinos,
eSpecially those in positions of leadership. Furthermore, growing concentration of low-
income residents means smaller city revenues, less capital for projects, and more challenges
to be met by local leaders. Cities can get special funding for housing, the schools, and
business development, but they need to have people who are aggressive grant writers or
who have connections to capital. The most educated and well—connected residents tend to
leave the Mexican towns and become community leaders in more affluent places. While

many people remain active in their home community, there is a smaller base of people and

 

75 e.g., In one Mexican town, the Anglo principal of the high school recognized that the foreign-born
students had little voice in school matters because the Mexican-American children dominated the leadership
positions in the school. He started a new council of students that anybody could join to give the foreign-
bom students an opportunity to voice their opinions on school matters, and become more actively involved
in school policy.

 

 

160
knowledge from which cities can draw leadership. And those people who become leaders

face more challenges than do leaders of more financially-secure places.

Implications for Other Regions

Research is emerging on rural Midwestern places that are becoming increasingly
Latino (e.g., Amato 1996; Martin, Taylor and Fix 1996; Gouveia and Stull 1996). The
Latino population has been growing in the Midwest since the 19608, but the largest growth
has been occurring since 1980 (Aponte and Siles 1994). Much of this growth has resulted
from the restructuring of the meatpacking industry, and the recruitment of Latino workers
for these low—paying, dangerous jobs. Multiple case studies have documented the dramatic
impacts of immigration and changing ethnicity in specific rural places, brought about by
changes in the meat packing industry (e.g., Amato 1996', Benson 1996; Gouveia and Stull
1996).

There is reason to believe that processes that have occurred in California may
replicate themselves in the Midwest and other rural places throughout the country.
Meatpacking work mirrors field work in disturbing ways. It is dangerous, there is little
room for economic mobility, and it is unstable due to its high turnover rates. A structure of
informal labor contracting has developed in which middlemen find employees for factories
in exchange for factory bonuses and fees extracted from workers.

However, differences between the Midwest and the Southwest may amplify or
diminish the process of ethnic transformation. For example, because many communities in
the Midwest lack a substantial “buffering” population of U.S.-bom Mexican-Americans,
white emigration and political conflict may be more severe in these places. On the other
hand, the larger geographical distance between the Southwest/Texas/California and places
in the Midwest and East might discourage some of the growth of foreign-born Latino
population. In general, people tend to make smaller moves that involve less risk (Portes

and Rumbaut 1990). However, Mexican immigration has never been confined to the

 

we“: gymnast ;,.r.~ ' ..- -

-— ~"'£‘.r.' <1 ~~ - ~
W‘M’ ‘F'.- -..r—-- .._-:_-.-- '—. - - - . «

161
Southwest. Given the increasing ease of transportation, geographical distance may be even
less important than in the past.

Informal observational evidence suggests that processes similar to those
documented in this study are occurring in places throughout the country.76 However, if
non-Latino population is not studied simultaneously with Latino population, these
phenomena will be missed. Furthermore, a regional approach should be taken when
studying the causes and consequences of immigration in regard to any one place. Housing,
job availability, and conflict in one place affect settlement in neighboring places, and vice—
versa. Most studies on emerging ethnic transformations in the Midwest have focused on
growing Latino population in towns with meatpacking plants. Little attention has been paid
to the growth and decline of other ethnic groups, or the concurrent demographic and
economic impacts on neighboring places. If similar processes are occurring in the Midwest
as in California, non-Latino population should be declining in places experiencing
immigration, thus exacerbating ethnic transformation. Places that are poorer, that have
excess housing, and that are located near meat packing plants (e.g., those that saw a loss of
population with the farm crisis of the 19803) should have experienced larger growth in
foreign-born population. At the same time, wealthier places near packing plants should
have experienced growth in non-Latino population, and perhaps a rise in defensive

discrimination.

Policy Implications
Efforts should be made to reduce the growing economic inequality between Latino
and Anglo towns. This might be achieved through: 1) programs to enhance economic
development in Mexican towns, 2) regional housing plans that do not concentrate low-

income housing, 3) social programs that address the particular needs of farmworker

 

76 e.g., Some school systems in Kansas are becoming increasingly Latino at extraordinary rates. However,
examination of school records shows that this is due not only to growing Latino enrollment, but also to
declining enrollment among non-Latino whites.

 

 

 

 

IN

162
communities, 4) and lawmaking that does not aggravate the poverty of the most vulnerable
members of the Latino community. Each of these potential efforts are discussed below. In
regions that are just beginning to experience increasing ethnic and economic segregation,
programs need to be developed to address this process before pockets of poverty are

created.

Economic Development in Mexican Towns

Economic development is critically needed in farmworker communities to
counteract and reduce the loss of high- and middle-income residents, and to enhance city
revenues. Two issues are key for the enhancement of the economic well—being of these
places: 1) developing policies to encourage business growth and success in colonias,
thereby raising city revenues and the quality of community life; and 2) increasing stability
of colonia residents’ incomes and allowing people to have more economic mobility as
farmworkers. However, it also cannot be assumed that job and wage growth by
themselves will attract or retain higher-income residents. Instead, such efforts might
encourage further emigration as rising earnings allow for more mobility. In conjunction
with economic growth, plans must be made to encourage the settlement of higher-income

individuals.

Industry and Business Attraction

Leaders in all of the Latino communities under study discussed the difficulties they
have had in attracting industry and business, despite their abundant supply of labor.
Because they have low city revenues, they cannot subsidize industry relocation at a
competitive rate with wealthier places. Two of the places under study also discussed
problems with infrastructure constraints that they could not afford to fix (e. g., the sewer
system of Orosi was at capacity at the time of this study). They also faced resistance from
the farming community when trying to bring in new industry. Growers complain that new
industry will take too much water, although most people believe the farmers resist new

industry because they do not want to compete for low-wage workers.

 

 

163

As long as cities are competing for industries by offering large sums of money for
relocation to their community, poorer communities will have a harder time competing for
these jobs. The dangers of this type of competition have been extensively discussed, as it
encourages constant relocation of business, and exacts large financial burdens on local
communities (e.g., Davidson 1990: 125 — 151). Communities that lose their industry are
devastated by unemployment, while those that gain industry do not always recover the
costs of attracting it. Until federal laws prohibit this type of competition, poorer
communities will have a harder time attracting and maintaining industrial development.

Therefore, as long as communities are competing for industries, poorer
communities will need outside support to be competitive. Grants for infrastructure
development in poorer places would ease the financial constraints on these places. Orange
Cove, for example, received a grant to replace their failing sewer system. The new system
purifies their water to such an extent that they can sell their recycled sewer water to farmers
in exchange for drinking water for the city. Because they were successful in getting grant
money for improvements in their infrastructure, they are able to consider a broader range of
development options than other farmworker communities. »

Economically poorer communities must also be careful about the types of industry
that they sponsor to promote job growth. More jobs do not necessarily bring lower
unemployment and poverty levels or higher incomes. For example, Farmersville is closer
to Visalia than is Woodlake, and it has a greater number of industries, but it has higher
unemployment, more poverty, and lower incomes. People note that industries go in and
out more in Farmersville, causing greater economic problems for the community. Industry
closings tend to have a devastating effect on communities because they brings a sudden
drop in employment. In discussion of industrial development, the city governments of

Exeter and Orange Cove both displayed awareness that industrial development can be

 

 

 

 

1m

164
detrimental to a city, despite bringing job growth.77 If the jobs do not provide sufficient
income, if they encourage population growth to a greater extent than there is job growth, or
if they cost more to the city in services than the city receives in tax revenue, the economic
well-being of the community remains low. In places where unemployment is high (i.e.,
farmworker communities), city governments may feel more pressure to accept any type of

industrial development, without regard for the future consequences of this growth.

 

Entrepreneurial Development

Because it is more difficult for low-income communities to attract industrial
development, therefore, they might want to encourage local business development. As
discussed in the section on rising Latino power, there are many barriers to business

development in colonias. The primary barrier that people expressed to business

 

development was lack of knowledge about laws and procedures. It is especially difficult
for foreign-born residents to start businesses as they lack capital and they are less familiar

with the economic and legal system in which they must work.78 Programs to educate

 

potential business owners, and provide legal and economic counseling, would improve the
viability of locally-owned establishments. This might be part of a,general adult education
program, aimed at improving residents’ economic options. Adult education, structured
around the hours of field workers, and made flexible for weather conditions and for
agricultural seasons, could also raise the level of human capital in colonias.

Efforts could also be made to increase the social capital among business owners in
colonias. There is a need for mentorship and advice. There is also a lack of trust and
c00peration among some business owners, which hampers joint efforts for economic
development. Most communities are trying to get people to work together. There are also

77 e. g., Exeter had recently turned away the establishment of a poultry-processing plant because some
residents were afraid it would attract low-income immigrants to their community. That plant opened in a
different community, but soon closed, economically burdening the other city.

78 e. g., “Recent immigrants bring a different way of life. Their ideas are more like Mexico, and sometimes
they run into legal trouble because they want to Open businesses informally, and then they get into legal
trouble” (Latino Mexican town businessman).

 

"mg”..tgaa...“..-. .. -
u”----'-‘—'_ .. H

165
several county-level economic development organizations (both private and governmental)
that are working to improve cooperation among business owners, while attracting outside
investment into the area. The Tulare County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, for
example, is trying to help Hispanic business owners make contacts with people in
established firms for advice and assistance. At the same time, they are helping Anglo
business owners learn how to do business with the growing Hispanic population. Efforts
such as these could enhance business grth in farmworker towns. The ideal type of
business development would take advantage of the unstable nature of farrnwork, giving

alternative employment to people during seasonal slumps.

Economic Stability tor Farrnworkers

Business development would be easier, however, if there was more economic
stability in farrnwork. Farrnworkers and farmers are the primary clients of most businesses
in Latino communities. Therefore, Mexican towns are extremely dependent on the incomes
of farmworkers for the economic well-being of the entire community. While business
development and community education might help colonias overcome some of the
disadvantages associated with low-income population, the most effective intervention
would be to increase the security of farrnworkers’ incomes. This would raise the income
of people in farmworker communities, and increase business viability. This might occur
with enhanced enforcement of labor laws (reducing job competition), mandating higher
salaries and benefits for agricultural workers, or the development of flexible local
businesses or government programs that could employ people in off-seasons or during
periods of high unemployment.79 Given that agricultural employment is, by nature,
unstable, moneys could be made available for such contingency programs throughout

agricultural communities.

 

79 In Orange Cove, for example, the city received funding to hire people to clean up the community when
bad weather brought about unusually high unemployment for several weeks.

 

 

 

 

166

Low-Income Housing Development

As shown in both the quantitative and qualitative results sections, housing is a very
important factor in promoting population growth. The city governments of both Woodlake
and Orange Cove have actively pursued and received grants for the construction of low-
income housing. Both governments are very proud of their accomplishments in this area,
and all of the residents surveyed felt that the new construction had a positive impact on the
appearance and quality of life of the community. However, the construction of low-income
housing in low-income communities has both positive and negative effects.

On the one hand, funding for low-income housing is good for farmworker
communities. Affordable housing is in great demand. In all of the communities, even in

the Anglo town under study, residents felt that the recent construction of new low-income

 

housing had benefited the town. New construction of apartments allowed people to move

out of run-down places, and construction of low-income houses allowed many people to

 

fulfill their dreams of being homeowners. While older, run-down, housing remained
occupied with new tenants, the ratio of new to old housing improved. Furthermore, some
people claimed that the new housing encouraged people in older housing to have more

pride in the appearance of the community and to clean up the appearance of their older
homes. Others suggested that as new people moved into the older housing they were more
likely to clean it up and repair it than were the people that lived there before. They
suggested that this was due to the type of peOple moving in, and to the excitement of living
someplace new.

However, while growth of low-income housing in low-income communities has
many beneficial effects, it also heightens inequality between places. Many peOple noted
that as low-income community members moved into new housing, new low-income
community members moved into the older housing. These new residents were not

necessarily either farmworkers or relatives/friends of community members, but were

people attracted solely by the low-income housing. This mix of new peOple -- elderly,

Fa

"v”? ..‘4.3~-'V4..~~’-‘~—-‘ '<'.. ‘ . ‘~ _‘ ‘.. - . ‘ ‘ 7",

167

non-working, and non-local -- has led to concern about increasing community conflict.
For example, growth of elderly population is associated with greater difficulties in passing
school bonds, while growth in non-working poor population is associated with lower
achievement among school children and greater problems with crime:

One thing that has changed (this town) a lot is that we have a lot of new

low-income housing. Since it’s county low-income housing, we get a

lot of people moving from Visalia to (this town). And they’re not

farmworkers. A lot of them don ’t work. What happens is

communities like Visalia don’t want the housing so they put it in

Woodlake or Orosi. And there’s a difi‘erence between the low-income

people who work and the low-income people who don ’t work. And it ’s

a difi‘erent type of influence on the community (male Latino Mexican

town resident).

Influx of poor population in poor areas often has a multiplicative and cyclical effect
on economic inequality between places. Low-income housing tends to cost cities more in
services then they get back in taxes. When poorer residents move from richer to poorer
areas, the economic differences between places grow. The increasing poverty of the poorer
places encourages emigration of richer community members, further concentrating poverty
in the poorer places. While it makes sense to build affordable housing where it is most
needed, care must be taken not to magnify the increasing concentration of poverty through
planning of regional governments. It was suggested in several interviews that wealthier
communities may be purposefully trying to concentrate poverty in the area by encouraging
growth of low-income housing primarily in Mexican towns. If the growing economic
inequality between places is to be slowed, there must be active planning to reduce the

concentration of low-income population, and to supplement income into cities with larger

percentages of low-income residents.

Special Programs

Concentration of families living on low-incomes leads to greater demands for social
programs and services. Many people discussed the need for assistance for basic items such

as medical care, dental care, and food subsidies. Affordable day care is also an important

 

 

 

168
issue as both parents in farmworker families often have extra long workdays. Some school
principals discussed the need for children to be exposed to different environments and
cultures. Others discussed the need for extended and more accessible adult-education
programs. Such issues exist in most low-income rural communities. Two issues that seem
to be more pronounced in colonias than in other places are the greater difficulties of

leadership development, and the concentration of problems associated with alcohol.

Leadership Development

Many people discussed the need for leadership development among new
generations of residents in farmworker communities. Among former farmworkers who
have assumed leadership positions in their communities, most noted that they found it
difficult at first to be accepted by established leaders, and that it took them years to learn
how to be successful within a political and economic system that was very foreign to them.
They also noted the important role of mentors in motivating them to get involved in the
community, and helping them to be successful. To encourage leadership among new
generations of residents in Mexican towns, efforts could be made to minimize the isolation
of newcomers and younger generations from established leaders of community government
and community organizations. Programs to train new leaders and get more people involved
in community life might also bridge some of the social gaps. People in both Orange Cove
and Cutler/Orosi mentioned the need for such programs, and discussed some efforts that

had recently been made.

Alcohol Abuse

 

There is also a need to address problems of alcohol abuse associated with male
farmworkers. Residents of Mexican towns and Anglo places are very concerned about
drunk driving, crime, and violence associated with high rates of alcohol consumption. At
the same time, the families of farmworkers arrested for drunk driving and alcohol-related
crimes face even greater economic burdens when a working family member must spend

time in jail and face fines. Many people blame alcohol and drug consumption for a variety

w ‘JWA‘T-.'. 1., "’_'.-‘»‘—-A»' inf & mot. _ , .‘ .4. .,
-.~__ H ...._ _ .. —.. .

169
of community problems, and have tried to reduce their use through legal means. Orange
Cove banned live music and dancing at establishments that sold alcohol in an attempt to
reduce the number of Customers at those establishments. Cutler/Orosi decided to restrict
the number of liquor licenses in the community. These policies reduce the concentration of
people consuming alcohol in local bars, thereby improving the community climate.
However, the problems of alcoholism and alcohol/drug abuse remain and need to be

addressed through affordable, culturally-conscious programs.

Immiggation Policies

Interviews also revealed problems with current immigration policies. Many of the
policies developed to reduce unauthorized immigration actually heighten the problems of
immigrants and the communities in which they live, without substantially reducing
undocumented immigration. Laws to address undocumented workers tend to prompt the
development of new systems for getting around the laws which have unintended negative
consequences. Documentation requirements for employment, for example, have led to the
development of a false document market. Most undocumented workers now purchase
these false documents. This increases the financial burden on undocumented workers who
can least afford the expense. It also fuels resentment among US. citizens who believe the
false documents are being used to obtain free government services such as welfare and
other entitlements. This, in turn, adds to the conflict and prejudice within communities.
Because “everybody” has documents, it is difficult to distinguish legal from unauthorized
immigrants. This discourages legally documented immigrants from pursuing services for
which they are entitled for fear of being looked down upon by other community members.

Other programs have equally negative consequences for communities. Fear of
deportation makes enforcement of laws and city codes more difficult. People run away
from, and avoid interaction with, government officials, rather than, for example, reporting
violations in their housing conditions, remaining at the scene of automobile accidents, or

reporting and giving evidence on crimes. Reaction against undocumented immigration led

 

 

170
to the passage of Proposition 187 in November 1995, a law that denies education and
medical services to undocumented residents. Debate over this proposal added to the
conflict within communities, fueling resentment among people on both sides of the issue.
It is doubtful that this law could ever have an effect on immigration. It has been held up in
courts because it is not constitutional, and, if ever implemented, affects the children of
immigrants more so than the adults who make migration decisions. While most people
agree that children should not be harmed, the implementation of this law would deny
services to the most economically needy children, and increase community problems
associated with the loss of services for this population.

Therefore, the question remains as to how to address unauthorized immigration
without increasing problems for immigrant communities. Since the primary concerns about
undocumented immigrants are that: 1) they increase job competition; and 2) they receive
services for which they are not entitled, these should be the primary focus of intervention
efforts. There is a movement to change the form of social security cards so that they cannot
be replicated. An electronic system has also been initiated to quicken the verification
process of employee eligibility. These programs address the primary concerns about
undocumented immigration.80 In contrast, programs that instill fear, and those that
withhold services, do not directly address the real issues of concern. Instead, they increase
the poverty of the poorest community residents, and they contribute to the deterioration of

community life in the towns that host immigrant workers.

Policy Implications for Other Areas

Both within and outside of California, regions that are beginning to undergo ethnic
transformation need to recognize the needs and potential impact of their new population if

they want to avoid re-creating the ethnic and economic segregation that has occurred in

h

80 However, if they are employed without special consideration for people currently working without
authorization in the United States they could pose more social problems for communities as thousands of
people who have been living in the United States for years will suddenly be without work.

 

17 1
central California. There seems to be a cycle of neglect for newcomers’ needs that leads, at
least in part, to community deterioration. Evidence of this process comes not only from
our research, but can also be seen in the case studies of other researchers (e.g., Krissman
1995 ; Palerm 1991; Rusten, Kissam, and Intili 1995). First, established residents fail to
recognize immigrants as part of their community, and do not feel it necessary to address
their needs. This can be seen in the separation of farmworker housing from the rest of
community housing, and efforts to keep immigrants out of community life. Poverty and
neglect therefore emerge in parts of the community. As Latino population grows, Latino
residents become more involved in community life, and conflict emerges based on differing
perceptions of community residents’ needs. As a result of this conflict, little is done to
promote community development, and the community stagnates. The deterioration of the
community leads more middle class residents to leave, further impoverishin g the
community. Because Anglo residents hold most of the economic power, and because
middle-class Latinos do not necessarily hold the same views as more recent immigrants,
conflict continues to exist in places that are predominantly Latino.

In places where ethnic transformation is beginning to occur, it seems possible that if
established residents faced the problems of prejudice and poverty, and included the needs
of newcomers as part of community planning, community deterioration and white
emigration might be minimized. For example, communities might work towards ensuring
that quality low-cost housing is available, and that housing codes are maintained, as a
means of preventing crowding and deterioration of neighborhoods. Efforts to receive
grants for programs serving minority and immigrant children might be pursued to reduce
the costs of increasing school enrollment. At the least, efforts could be made to build
understanding and trust between Anglo and Mexican residents. Many Anglo residents
expressed feelings of discomfort with the Spanish-speaking newcomers to their

communities. Efforts to incorporate newcomers into community clubs and activities, and

Spanish-language classes for established residents, might help to relieve the mistrust that

 

 

 

172
exists between the two groups. If these things are to happen, however, established

community residents must first recognize the newcomers as part of the community.

Future Research

There were many limitations to this study which could be addressed in future work.
One issue of greatest concern is that no attempt was made to differentiate different groups
of immigrants, either by country of origin or legal status. Different immigrant groups are
met with varying “contexts of reception” based on the immigration policies towards that
group, attitudes on the part of host community members, and the policies of employers
(Portes and Borocz 1989). While most immigrants to rural California come from Mexico,
people are increasingly coming from Central America. There are also substantial numbers
of immigrants from Asian countries. Given the importance of social capital in both
settlement decisions and economic opportunities, communities that host immigrants from
newer sending countries might face different issues and greater problems associated with
economic inequality. The legal status of newcomers also plays an important role in their
adaptation. Legal status can be thought of as “political capital” which determines the type
of employment people can obtain and the services to which they are entitled (Rumbaut
1995). Undocumented workers generally find jobs with relatively low wages and difficult
working conditions. They also face greater constraints than documented workers in all
aspects of their daily lives. Communities in which more residents have higher levels of
political capital should find it easier to implement projects to enhance community life, as
there would be less fear, more involvement, and higher incomes among community
members.

Furthermore, the low percentage of variance explained in foreign-born population
growth suggests that either foreign-born population was not well counted by the census, or
that key variables were left unstudied. Both scenarios are likely. Census undercounting of

recent immigrants is well documented, especially counts of undocumented population.

173
Other studies have shown that specific social networks are integral for understanding
migration patterns among immigrants. However, these could not be measured with the
quantitative data available.

This research also made no attempt to study different outcomes for individuals
within the different types of communities. All analysis was done at the community level.
Interviews suggested that the process of changing community ethnic composition might
have different effects on people based on their ethnicity, their gender, and their economic
status. For example, it was suggested earlier that there might be some economic, political,
and occupational advantages for Latinos in Mexican towns that do not exist to the same
extent in Anglo communities, despite the lower economic well-being of those places. Job
and wage growth could be expected to have very different effects on the earnings potential
of women versus men, especially given the greater family demands placed on Mexican
women, and the greater problems women face in being able to commute to work (e. g., see
Madden 1981). Interviews also suggested that contact with members of different ethnic
groups had different impacts on women than on men (e. g., encouragement of women to
assert their autonomy and challenge traditional roles). The climate of the schools was also
very different in the different communities. Latino concentration seemed to have both
positive and negative effects on achievement among Mexican and Mexican-American
students, as it allowed Mexican-American students to become school leaders, but resulted
in concentration of problems associated with poverty, lower overall educational
expectations among the student body, and isolation from Anglo and other cultures. Intra-
and inter-generational economic mobility might, therefore, be very different in Mexican
towns than in more-Anglo places, and for individuals with varying demographic and
economic characteristics.

This study could also be replicated in other areas to discover universalities in ethnic
transformation. It was mentioned that parts of the country that are just beginning to see

ethnic transformation in rural areas might benefit from similar study. Factors unique to

 

 

174
these places might impact settlement and emigration in unexpected ways. It is also
reasonable to assume that increasing rural migration has had some effect on urban
communities. Chicago, for example, has been a traditional magnet for immigration from
Mexico, and has dominated the Midwest in terms of Latino population. Now that ru_ral
places in the Midwest are attracting Latino workers from California, Texas, and Mexico, it
is reasonable to assume that patterns of immigration to Chicago have been affected. The
places in this study were also fairly homogenous in terms of their foreign-born and their
non-Latino populations, and those studied qualitatively were homogenous in their industrial
base. Areas that are more diverse might experience very different consequences resulting
from growing Latino immigration, as they would provide a very different context of

reception.

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

 

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

Alarcon, Rafael. 1996. Rural Poverty and Immigration from Mexico in Madera County,
California. J SRI Working Paper #27, The Julian Sarnora Research Institute, Michigan
State University. October 1996.

Allensworth, Elaine M. 1996. “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.” The International Migration Review, 31 (Summer): 386 -
410.

Allensworth, Elaine M. and Refugio I. Rochin. 1995. "Rural California Communities:
Trends in Latino Population and Community Life." JSRI CIFRAS Brief, No.7, The
Julian Samora Research Institute, Michigan State University. October 1995.

Almaguer, Tomas. 1994. Racial Fault Lines. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Amato, Joseph A. 1996. To Call It Home: Minority Newcomers in Southwestern
Minnesota, Marshall, Minnesota: Crossings Press.

Aponte, Robert, and Marcelo Siles. 1994. “Latinos in the Heartland: The Browning of the
Midwest,” Research Report #5, Lansing, Michigan: Julian Samora Research Institute.

Barkley, Paul W. and Denise M. Rogers. 1986. "More New People in Old Towns: It
May Not Indicate Financial Health." Choices, a publication of the American
Agricultural Economics Association, Fourth Quarter, pp. 6—9.

Bean, Frank D. Jorge Chapa, Ruth R. Berg, and Kathryn A. Sowards. 1994.
“Educational and Sociodemographic Incorporation among Hispanic Immigrants to the

United States.” pp.‘73 to 98 in Barry Edmonston and Jeffrey S. Passel (eds)

175

 

 

 

176
Immigration and Ethnicity: The Integration of America ’s Newest Arrivals, Washington
DC: The Urban Institute.

Bean, Frank D., B.L. Lowell, and L.J. Taylor. 1988. “Undocumented Mexican
Immigrants and the Earnings of Other Workers in the United States,” Demography,
35(1): 35-52.

Becker, Howard. 1970. “Fieldwork Evidence.” Pp. 39 - 62 in Sociological Work.-
Method and Substance, Chicago: Aldine.

Benson, Janet E. 1996. “Garden City: Meatpacking and Immigration to the High Plains.”
Paper presented at the conference Immigration and the Changing Face of Rural
America: Focus on the Midwestern States, July 11-13, Ames, Iowa.

Bokemeier, Janet and Lorraine Garkovich. 1993. “Meeting Rural Family Needs.” Pp.

1 14-127 in C. Flora and J. Christenson (eds.) Rural Policies for the 19905, Westview:
Boulder.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. "The Forms of Capital." Pp. 241-258 in John G. Richardson
(ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New York:
Greenwood Press. _

Brown, David and Mildred Warner. 1991. “Persistent Low-Income Nonmetropolitan
Areas in the United States: Some Conceptual Challenges for Developmental Policy.”
Policy Studies Journal, 19 (2): 22-41.

Cantu, Lionel. 1995. “The Peripheralization of Rural America: A Case Study of Latino
Migrants in America’s Heartland.” Sociological Perspectives, 38(3): 399-414.

Castells, Manuel and Alejandro Portes. “World Underneath: The Origins, Dynamics and
Effects of the Informal Economy.” Pp. 11-40 in The Informal Economy: Studies in

Advanced and Less Developed Societies, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Castells, Manuel. 1973. “Urbanization, Development and Dependence.” Pp. 39-63 in

The Urban Question, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

 

177

Castillo, Monica Dianne. 1991. California's Rural Colonias: A Study of Disadvantaged
Communities With High Concentrations of Latinos. Master's Thesis, Agricultural
Economics, the University of California at Davis.

Chavez, Linda. 1989. “Tequila Sunrise: The Slow But Steady Progress of Hispanic
Immigrants.” Policy Review, no. 48 (Spring): 64-67.

Christaller, Walter. 1966. Central Places in Southern Germany. Carlisle W. Baskin
(translator), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Cohen, Robin. 1987. The New Helots: Migrants in the International Division of Labor.
Brookfield, VT: Gower.

Coleman, James S. 1968. “The Concept of Educational Opportunity.” Harvard
Educational Review, 38 (1): 7-22.

Coleman, James S. 1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” American
Journal of Sociology, 94 - Supplement: 95-120.

Davidson, Osha Gray. 1990. Broken Heartland: The Rise of America ’s Rural Ghetto,
New York: Free Press.

Dill, Bonnie and Bruce Williams. 1992. “Race, Gender, and Poverty in the Rural South:
African American Single Mothers.” Pp. 97-109 in Cynthia Duncan (ed.), Rural
Poverty in America, New York: Auburn House.

Dixon, Marlene, Elizabeth Martinez and Ed McCaughan. 1985. “Theoretical Perspectives
on Chicanas, Mexicanas and the Transnational Working Class.” Contemporary
Marxism, (11): 47-76.

Eades, Jeremy. 1987. Migrants, Workers, and the Social Order. New York: Tavistok.

Falk, William and Thomas Lyson. 1993. “Forgotten Places Redux. Pp. 257-269 in
Forgotten Places: Uneven Development in Rural America, University Press of Kansas:
Lawrence.

Farley, Reynolds. 1990. “Blacks, Hispanics and White Ethnic Groups: Are Blacks

Uniquely Disadvantaged?” The American Economic Review, 80(2): 237-241.

 

 

 

 

178

Feagin, Joe and Michael Smith. 1987. “Cities and the New International Division of
Labor: An Overview.” Pp. 336 in The Capitalist City: Global Restructuring and
Community Politics, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Fitchen, Janet. 1991. “People and places: Demographic change and local response.” Pp.
85-97 in Endangered Spaces, Enduring Places: Change, Identity and Survival in Rural
America, Boulder: Westview.

Fitchen, Janet. 1995. “Spatial Redistribution of Poverty through Migration of Poor
People to Depressed Rural Communities.” Rural Sociology, 60(2): 181-201.

Fix, Michael and Jeffrey S. Passel. 1994. Immigration and Immigrants: Setting the
Record Straight, Washington DC: The Urban Institute.

Flora, Jan L., Gary P. Green, Edward A. Gale, Frederick E. Schmidt, and Cornelia Butler
Flora. 1992. “Self—Development: A Viable Rural Development Option?” Policy
Studies Journal, 20(2): 276-288.

Fox, Kenneth. 1985. Metropolitan America: Urban Life and Urban Policy in the United
States, 1940-1980, Rutgers Press: New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Frank, Andre Gunder. 1972. “The Development of Underdevelopment.” Pp. 3-17 in
James D. Cockcroft and Dale Johnson (eds), Dependence and-Underdevelopment:
Latin America’s Political Economy, New York: Anchor.

Frey, William H. 1995. "Immigration and Internal Migration 'Flight' From US.
Metropolitan Areas: Toward a New Demographic Balkanisation." Urban Studies, 32
(4-5): 733—757.

Friedmann, John. 1986. “The World—City Hypothesis.” Development and Change, 17:
69-83.

Frisbie, W. Parker, and Lisa Neidert. 1977. “Inequality and the Relative Size of Minority
Populations: A Comparative Analysis.” American Journal of Sociology, 82 (March):

1007-30.

 

179

Fuentes, Annette, and Barbara Ehrenreich. 1989. Women in the Global Factory, Boston:
South End Press.

Fukuyama, Francis. 1995. “Social Capital and the Global Economy.” Foreign Aflairs,
74(5): 89-103.

Galarza, Ernesto. 1977. Farm Workers and Agri-business in California, [947-1960,
Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

Gilbert, Jess and Raymond Akor. 1988. “Increasing Structural Divergence in US.
Dairying: California and Wisconsin since 1950.” Rural Sociology, 53 (1): 56-72.

Goldschmidt, Walter. 1978. As You Sow: Three Studies in the Social Consequences of
Agribusiness, Montclair: Allanheld, Osmun, and Co.

Gouveia, Lourdes and Donald D. Stull. 1996. Latino Immigrants, Meatpacking Work,
and Rural Communities: A Nebraska Case Study. Unpublished Manuscript.

Gringeri, Christina E. 1994. Getting By: Women Homeworkers and Rural Economic
Development, Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.

Huang, Tzu—Ling and Peter F. Orazem. 1996. “An Analysis of the Causes and
Consequences of Foreign-Bom Population Growth in the Midwest and South-Central
States, 1950-1990.” Paper presented at the conference Immigration and the Changing
Face of Rural America: Focus on the Midwestern States, July 11-13, Ames, Iowa.

Huffman, Wallace E. and John A. Mirankowski. 1996. “Immigration, Meat Packing and
Trade.” Paper presented at the conference Immigration and the Changing Face of Rural
America: Focus on the Midwestern States, July 1 1-13, Ames, Iowa.

Hum, Christopher J. 1978. “The Sources of Inequality in Educational Performance.” Pp.
108- 143 in The Sources of Inequality in Educational Performance.

Hymer, Stephen. 1971. “The Multinational Corporation and the Law of Uneven
Development.” Pp. 113-140 in J .W. Bhagwati (ed.) Economics and World Order,

New York: MacMillan.

 

180

James, Franklin. 1990. “City Need and Distress in the United States: 1970 to the Mid-
19803.” Pp. 13-31 in Marshall Kaplan and Franklin James (eds.) The Future of
National Urban Policy, Durham: Duke University.

Johnson, Kenneth M. 1993. “Demographic Change in Nonmetropolitan America, 1980-
1990.” Rural Sociology, 58 (3): 347-365.

King, Anthony. 1989. “Colonialism, Urbanism and the Capitalist World Economy.”
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 13(1): 1-18.

Kozol, Jonathon. 1991. Savage Inequalities: Children in America ’s Schools, New York:
Crown.

Krissman, Fred. 1995. “Cycles of Poverty in Rural Californian Towns: comparing

McFarland and Farmersville in the Southern San Joaquin Valley.” Paper presented at

 

Asilomar, CA, June 12-14.

Labao, Linda. 1990. “The Uneven Development of Farm and Industrial Structure.” Pp.

 

23—73 in Locality and Inequality: Farm and Industry Structure, Albany: SUNY Press.

Luloff, A.E. 1990. “Small Town Demographics: Current Patterns of Community
Change.” Pp. 7-18 in A.E. Luloff and LE. Swanson (eds.) American Rural
Communities, Westview: Boulder. ~

Levy, Frank. 1995. “Incomes and Income Inequality.” Pp. 1 - 57 in Reynolds Farley
(ed.) State of the Union, America in the 1990s, Volume One: Economic Trends,
Russel Sage: New York.

Madden, Janice. 1981. “Why Women Work Closer to Home,” Urban Studies, 18: 181-
194.

Magnet, Myron. 1989. “How Business Bosses Saved a Sick City.” Fortune, March 27.

Manta, Ben. “Toward Economic Development of the Chicano Barrio: Alternative
Strategies and Their Implications,” Southwest Economy and Society, 1 (1).

Martin, Philip L., J. Edward Taylor and Michael Fix. 1996. Immigration and the

Changing Faces of Rural America: Focus on the Midwestern States, Occasional Paper

 

18 1
#21, The Julian Samora Research Institute, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan.

Martin, Philip. 1995 . Integrating Immigrants in Rural California and Rural America.
Paper presented at the conference “Immigration and the Changing Face of Rural
California,” Paper presented at Asilomar, CA, June 12-14.

Massey, Douglas S. and Kristin E. Espinosa. 1995. What's Driving Mexico-U. S.
Migration? A Theoretical, Empirical, and Policy Analysis. Under Review.

Massey, Douglas S., Joaquin Arango, Graeme Hugo, Ali Kouaoci, Adela Pellegrino, and
J. Edward Taylor. 1994. "An Evaluation of International Migration Theory: The
North American Case." Population Development and Review, 20(4): 699-752.

Matute-Bianchi, Maria Eugenia. 1991. “Situational Ethnicity and Patterns of School
Performance among Immigrant and Nonimmigrant Mexican-Descent Students.” Pp.
205-247 in Margaret A. Gibson and John U. Ogbu Minority Status and Schooling: A
Comparative Study of Immigrant and Involuntary Minorities, New York: Garland.

Nakano Glenn, Evelyn. 1991. “Racial Ethnic Women’s Labor: The Intersection of Race,
Gender and Class Oppression.” Pp. 173-201 in KL. Blumberg (ed.) Gender, Family
and Economy, Newbury Park: Sage. I i

Naples, Nancy A. 1991. “Revisiting the Insider/Outsider Debate: The ‘Outsider
Phenomenon’ in Rural Iowa.” Rural Sociology, 59(1): 110-135.

Neidert, Lisa and R. Farley. 1985. “Assimilation in the United States: An Analysis of
Ethnic and Generation Differences in Status and Achievement.” American Sociological
Review, 50: 840-850.

O’Brien, David J ., Edward W. Hassinger, Ralph B. Brown and James R. Pinkerton.

1991. “The Social Networks of Leaders in More and Less Viable Rural Communities.”
Rural Sociology, 56(4): 699-716.

Ogbu, John U. 1987. “Variability in Minority School Performance: A Problem in Search

of an Explanation.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18 (4): 312-334.

 

182

Ortiz, Vilma. 1995. "Socio-Economic Progress Among Mexican Immigrants in Los
Angeles.” Paper presented at the conference "Latinos in California," October 20 and
21, Riverside, California.

Palerm, Juan-Vicente. 1995. “Policy Implications of Community Studies.” Paper
presented at the conference “Immigration and the Changing Face of Rural California,”
Asilomar, CA, June 12-14.

Palerm, Juan Vicente. 1991. Farm Labor Needs and Farm Workers in California 1970 to
1989. California Agricultural Studies Report #91-22 University of California, Santa
Barbara.

Portes, Alejandro. 1996. “Global Villagers.” American Front (25): 74-77.

Portes, Alejandro. 1995. “Economic Sociology and the Sociology of Immigration: A
Conceptual Overview.” Pp. 1 - 41 in Alejandro Portes (ed.) The Economic Sociology
of Immigration, Russel Sage: New York.

Portes, Alejandro and Robert L. Bach. 1985. Iatin Journey: Cuban and Mexican
Immigrants in the United States, Berkeley: University of California.

Portes, Alejandro and Joszef Borocz. 1989. “Contemporary Immigration: Theoretical
Perspectives on its Determinants and Modes of Incorporation.”-Intemational Migration
Review, 23(3): 606-630.

Portes, Alejandro and Robert D. Manning. 1986. “The Immigrant Enclave: Theory and
Empirical Examples.” Pp. 47—64 in S. Olzark and J. Nagel (eds), Comparative Ethnic
Relations, Orlando, Florida: Academic Press.

Portes, Alejandro and Julia Sensenbrenner. 1993. "Embeddedness and Immigration:

Notes on the Social Determinants of Economic Action." American Journal of
Sociology, 98(6): 1320-50.
Portes, Alejandro and Ruben G. Rumbaut. 1990. Immigrant America: A Portrait,

Berkeley: University of California Press.

 

183

Reed, Deborah, Melissa Glenn Haber, and Laura Mameesh. 1996. The Distribution of
Income in California, Public Policy Institute of California: San Francisco.

Robison, Lindon J. and A. Allan Schmid. 1991. "Interpersonal Relationships and
Preferences: Evidence and Implications." Handbook of Behavioral Economics,
Volume 2B: 347-360.

Robison, Lindon J. and Steven D. Hanson. 1995. “Social Capital and Economic
Cooperation." Journal of Agriculture and Applied Economics, 27(1): 43-58.

Rochin, Refugio I. 1995. “Rural Latinos: Evolving Conditions and Issues.” In Emery
Castle (ed.) The American Coungyside, Kansas University Press: Lawrence.

Rochin, Refugio 1., Rogelio Saenz, Steve Hampton, and Bea Calo. 1996. Entrepreneurs
in Rural California. Unpublished Manuscript.

Rochin, Refugio I, and Elias S. Lopez. 1995. “Immigration and Community
Transformation in Rural California.” Paper presented at the conference “Immigration
and the Changing Face of Rural California,” Asilomar, CA, June 12-14.

Rochin, Refugio I. 1990. Central Place Theory and the Availability and Prices of
Consumer Items in Small Towns: The Case of Northern California, Working Paper
#90-1, University of California, Davis, Dept. of Agricultural Economics.

Rochin, Refugio I. and Monica D. Castillo. 1995. “Immigration and Colonia Formation
in Rural California.” mmigration Reform and US. Agpiculture, ed. by Philip L.
Martin, Wallace Huffman, Robert Emerson, J. Edward Taylor, and Refugio I. Rochin.
University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication

3358.

RSS Task Force on Rural Poverty. 1994. “Poverty in rural America: Trends and
Demographic Characteristics.” Pp. 20—38 in RSS Task Force on Rural Poverty,

Poverty in Rural America, Boulder: Westview.

 

' -c~‘x '

184

Rumbaut, Ruben G. 1996. “Origins and Destinies: Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in
Contemporary America.” Pp. 21 - 42 in Origins and Destinies: Immigration, Race,
and Ethnicity in Contemporary America, Wadsworth: Belmont, CA.

Rumbaut, Ruben G. 1995. Ties That Bind: Immigration and Immigrant Families in the
United States. Paper presented to the National Symposium on International Migration
and Family Change: The Experience of US. Immigrants, The Pennsylvania State
University, November 2-3.

Rumbaut, Ruben G. 1992. “The Americans: Latin American and Caribbean Peoples in
the United States.” Americas: New Interpretive Essays. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Rumbaut, Ruben and Wayne Cornelius. 1995. California ’3 Immigrant Children: Theory,
Research, and Implications for Educational Policy, San Diego: Center for U.S.-
Mexican Studies.

Runsten, David, Ed Kissam, and JoAnn Intili. 1995. “Parlier: The Farmworker Service
Economy.” Paper presented at Asilomar, CA, June 12-14.

Saenz, Rogelio and John K. Thomas. 1991. “Minority Poverty in Nonmetropolitan
Texas.” Rural Sociology, 56 (2): 204-223. ~

Samuelson, Robert J. 1996. "Immigration and Poverty." p. 43, Newsweek, July 15.

Sassen, Saskia. 1995. “Immigration and Local Labor Markets.” Pp. 87 - 127 in
Alejandro Portes (ed.) The Economic Sociology of Immigration, Russel Sage: New
York.

Sassen, Saskia. 1990a. The Global City, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Sassen, Saskia. 1990b. “Economic Restructuring and the American City.” Annual
Review of Sociology, 16: 465-490.

Sassen, Saskia. 1988. The Mobility of labor and Capital. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University.

 

 

 

,,,.. q.

 

185

Sassen-Koob, Saskia. 1982. “Recomposition and Peripheralization at the Core.” Pp. 88-
100 in The New Nomads, Marlene Dixon and Susanne Jonas (eds), San Francisco:
Synthesis.

Schatzman, Leonard and Anselm Strauss. 1973. Field Research: Strategies for a Natural
Sociology, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

SCR 43 Task Force. 1989. The Challenge: Latinos in a Changing California, Report of
the University of California SCR 43 Task Force, University of California, Riverside.

 

Sivanandan, A. 1990. “New Circuits of Imperialism.” Pp. 169 - 193 in Communities of
Resistance: writings on black struggles for socialism, New York: Verso.

Snipp, C. Matthew, Hayward Derrick Horton, Leif Jensen, J oane N agel and Refugio I.
Rochin. 1993. “Persistent Rural Poverty and Racial and Ethnic Minorities.” Pp. 173—
199 in the RSS Sociological Society Task Force on Rural Poverty, Persistent Poverty

in Rural America, Boulder: Westview.

 

Storper, Michael and Richard Walker. 1989. The Capitalist Imperative, New York: Basil
Blackwell.

Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin. 1991. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded
Theory Procedures and Techniques. Beverly Hills: Sage. -

Summers, Gene F. 1991. “Minorities in Rural Society.” Rural Sociology, 56 (2): 177—

188.

Taylor, J. Edward. 1995. “Immigration and the Changing Economies of Rural
California.” Paper presented at Asilomar, CA, June 12-14.

Taylor J. Edward, and Philip L. Martin. 1996. The Immigrant Subsidy in Agriculture:
Farm Employment, Poverty, and Welfare in Rural Towns,” Paper presented at the
conference Immigration and the Changing Face of Rural America: Focus on the
Midwestern States, July 11-13, Ames, Iowa.

Thomas, June Manning, and William Lontz. 1991. Intergovernmental Cooperation for

Economic Development: Greater Detroit’s Six Pack. Unpublished Manuscript.

186
Tickamyer, Ann and Cynthia Duncan. 1990. “Poverty and Opportunity Structure in Rural
America.” Annual Review of Sociology, 16: 67-86.

Tickamyer, Ann, Janet Bokemeier, Shelly Feldman, Rosalind Harris, John P. Jones, and

 

Dee Ann Wenk. 1993. “Women and Persistent Rural Poverty.” Pp. 200-229 in RSS
Task Force on Rural Poverty, Poverty in Rural America, Westview Press: Boulder.

Tienda, Marta and Ding-Tzann Lii. 1987. “Minority Concentration and Earnings
Inequality: Blacks, Hispanics and Asians Compared.” American Journal of Sociology
93(1): 141-65.

Timberlake, Michael. 1987. “World-System Theory and the Study of Comparative
Urbanization.” Pp. 37-65 in Michael Smith and Joe R. Feagin (eds) The Capitalist
City, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

 

Trejo, Stephen. 1995. “Why Do Mexican-Americans Earn Low Wages?” Paper presented
at the conference “Latinos in California,” October 20 and 21, Riverside,,CA.

United States Bureau of the Census. 1993. Census of Population and Housing, 1990,

 

Summary Tape File 3. Washington, DC.

Verdugo, Naomi Turner and Richard R. Verdugo. 1985. “Earnings Differentials between
Mexican-American, Black and White Male Eamers.” The Mexican-American
Experience: An Interdisciplinary Anthology. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. “The Rise and Demise of the World Capitalist System:
Concepts for Comparative Analysis.” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 16:
389-415.

Warren, Roland L. 1978. The Community in America, Third Edition. Chicago: Rand
McNally.

Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass,
and Public Policy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Young, Gay. 1992. "Chicana College Students on the Texas-Mexico Border: Tradition

and Transformation." Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 14(3): 341-352.

 

 

APPENDICES

 

AMADOR
Ione city
Jackson city
Sutter Creek city

BUTTE
Biggs city
Gridley city
Oroville city
Palermo

South Oroville
Therrnalito

CALAVERAS
Angels city
Arnold
Murphys

San Andreas

COLUSA
Arbuckle
Colusa city
Williams city

CONTRA COSTA
Bethe] Island
Discovery Bay

DEL NORTE
Crescent City city
Crescent City North

EL DORADO
Cameron Park
Diamond Springs
El Dorado Hills
Placerville city
Pollock Pines
Shingle Springs

187

APPENDIX A

Counties and Places Under Study

FRESNO
Caruthers
Coalinga city
Del Rey

Easton
Firebaugh city
Fowler city
Huron city
Kerrnan city
Kingsburg city
Laton

Mendota city
Mira Monte
Orange Cove city
Parlier city
Reedley city
Riverdale
Sanger city

San Joaquin city
Selma city

GLENN
Hamilton City
Orland city
Willows city

w

Arcata city
Blue Lake city
Cutten
Femdale city
Fortuna city
McKinleyville
Myrtletown
Pine Hills
Redway

Rio Dell city

IMPERIAL
Brawley city
Calexico city
Calipatn'a city
Heber

Holtville city
Imperial city
Niland

Seeley
Westrnorland city

INYO

Big Pine
Bishop city
Lone Pine

 

KERN

Arvin city
Bodfish

Boron
Buttonwillow
California City city
Ford City
Frazier Park
Kemville -' »
Lake Isabella
Lamont
McFarland city
Man'copa city
Mojave

North Edwards
Rosamond
Shafter city
South Taft

Taft city

Taft Heights
Tehachapi city
Wasco city
Weedpatch
Wofford‘ Heights

 

 

K I N G S
Arrnona
Avenal city
Corcoran city
Home Garden
Kettleman City
Lemoore city

LAKE
Clearlake city
Clearlake Oaks
Kelseyville
Lakeport city
Lower Lake
Luceme

 

LAS SEN
Susanville city
Westwood

LOS ANGELES
Avalon city

MADERA
Bonadelle-Madera
Ranchos
Chowchilla city
Madera Acres
Oakhurst
Parksdale
Parkwood

MARIN

Bolinas
Lagunitas—Forest Knolls
Woodacre

MARIPOSA
Mariposa

MERCED
Delhi

Dos Palos city
Gustine city
Hilmar-Irwin
Livingston city
Los Banos city
Planada
Winton

MODOC
Alturas city
Gonzales city
Greenfield city

MONO

King City city
Mammoth Lakes town
Soledad city

MONTEREY
Carmel Valley Village
Castroville

Las Lomas

 

NAPA
Angwin
Calistoga city
Deer Park

St. Helena city
Yountville town

NBA—DA

Alta Sierra

Grass Valley city
Nevada City city

Penn Valley
Truckee

PLACER

Auburn city

Colfax city

Foresthill

Kings Beach

Lincoln city

Loomis town
Meadow Vista

North Auburn
Sunnyside-Tahoe City

PLUMAS

Chester

Greenville

Portola city
Quincy-East Quincy

W
Beaumont city
Blythe city

Canyon Lake
Cherry Valley
Desert Hot Springs city
East Blythe
Homeland
Idyllwild—Pine Cove
Lake Elsinore city
Lakeland Village

Mecca

Murrieta Hot Springs
Nuevo

Romoland

Sedco Hills

Sun City

Thousand Palms

W
Galt city

§A_N BEN—ITO
Hollister city
San Juan Bautista city

 

S A N BERNARDINO

Adelanto city
Big Bear City
Crestline

Joshua Tree
Lake Arrowhead
Lenwood
Morongo Valley
Nebo Center
Needles city
Searles Valley
Twentynine Palms city
Wrightwood
Yucca Valley

S A N DIEGO
Alpine

Borrego Springs
Jamul

Julian

Rainbow
Ramona

Valley Center

SAN OA UIN
Escalon city
Lathrop city
Lockeford

Ripon city

SAN LUIS OBISPO
Arroyo Grande city
Baywood—Los Osos
Cambria

Cayucos

El Paso de Robles city
Grover City city
Morro Bay city

N ipomo

Oceano

Pismo Beach city

 

189

SANTA BARBARA
Buellton

Guadalupe city

Santa Ynez

Solvang city

SANTA CLARA
Mono Vista
San Martin

SANTA CRUZ

S HASTA
Anderson city
Burney
Cottonwood

SI S KIYOU
Dunsmuir city
McCloud
Montague city
Mount Shasta city
Weed city

Yreka city

SOLANO
Dixon city
Rio Vista city

SON OMA

Boyes Hot Springs
Cloverdale city

El Verano

Fetters H.S.—Agua Caliente
Glen Ellen

Graton
Guemeville
Healdsburg city
Monte Rio
Sebastopol city
Sonoma city

STANISLAUS
Denair

Hughson city
Newman city
Oakdale city
Patterson city
Riverbank city
Waterford city

SUTTER
Live Oak city
Sutter

TEHAMA
Corning city
Los Molinos
Red Bluff city

TRINITY
Hayfork
Weaverville

TULARE
Cutler

Dinuba city
Earlimart

East Porterville
Exeter city
Farmersville city
Ivanhoe

‘- Lindsay city

London

Orosi

Pixley

Poplar-Cotton Center
Rich grove
Strathmore

Terra Bella

Tipton

Woodlake city
Woodville

 

TUOLUMNE
Jamestown
Sonora city
Tuolumne City
Twain Harte

w
Fillmore city
Meiners-Miramonte
Oak View

Ojai city

Piru

YOLO

Esparto
Winters city

Y UB A
Wheatland city

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

Correlations Among Population Growth Variables

Table 15. Correlations Among Percentage Growth Variables

 

 

 

Percentage Percentage Percentage Change,
Change, Change, Non-Latinos
Foreign Born Latinos
Percentage Change, Foreign Born 1.00 ..46 .26
Percentage Change, Latinos .46 1.0000 .43
Percentage Change, Non—Latinos .26 .43 1.0000

 

 

All correlations are significant at p<.001.

Table 16. Correlations Among 1980 and 1990 Community Ethnicity Variables

 

 

 

Percent Percent Percent Percent Foreign
Latino, Foreign Latino, Born, 1980
1990 Born, 1990 1980
Percent Latino, 1990 1.00 .93 .97. .85
Percent Foreign Born, 1990 .93 1.00 .90 .89
Percent Latino, 1980 .97 .90 1.00 .88
Percent Foreign Born, 1980 .85 .89 .88 1.00

 

All correlations are significant at p<.001.

191

 

 

192

Table 17. Correlations of Foreign-Bom Population Growth With Community Ethnicity

 

 

 

Growth in Foreign— % Growth in Percent Latino.
Born, Absolute Foreign Born 1980
Numbers Population
Growth in Foreign-Born, 1.0000 .4039 .5864
Absolute Numbers P: . P: .000 P: .000
% Growth in Foreign .4039 1.0000 .0766
Born Population P: .000 P: . P: .195
Percent Latino, 1980 .5864 .0766 1.0000
P: .000 P: .195 = .

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

Correlations Among County Agricultural and Employment Variables

Table 18. Correlations Among County Agricultural and Employment Variables

 

 

 

Agricultural Agricultural Percent Percent
Restructuring Restructuring change in increase in Percent
(1) More (2) More labor wages to workers in growth in
industrial-type intensive hired labor the county Per worker per worker
farms crops (1982-87) 1980-89 wage, wage
1980 1980-89
Ag.Restr.l 1.0000 .0165 .5593 -.0049 -.0045 .0352
(Industrial) = P=.754 P=.OOO P=.926 P=.931 P=.504
Ag.Restr.2 .0165 1.0000 .0625 .0674 .1711 .0758
(Intensive) P=.754 P=. P=.235 P=.200 P=.001 P=.149
HiredLabor .5593 .0625 1.0000 .0386 -.0166 -.1266
Growth P=.OOO P=.235 P=. P=.464 P=.752 P=.Ol6
W0rker(J0b) -.0049 .0674 .0386 1.0000 -.1575 .4775
Growth P=.926 P=.200 P=.464 P=. P=.003 P=.OOO
Wages, 1980 -.0045 .1711 -.0166 -.1575 1.0000 -.1492
P=.931 P=.001 P=.752 P=.003 P=. P=.OO4
P=.504 P=.149 =.016 P=.000” P=.004 P=.
193

 

 

APPENDIX D

Descriptive Statistics

Table 19. Descriptive Statistics

 

 

 

 

Standard
Variable Mean DQ131111 Minimum Maximum
Community Community Development, .00 1.00 -2.93767 2.76282
Development scale composed of the
following:
Change in % Unemployed 4.09 3.18 -1.46 19.42
Change in % in Poverty 2.89 7.21 -31.79 29.66
Change in % High School 4.27 6.43 -24.58 20.61
Graduates
Change in % College Graduates 1.07 3.65 -l 1.58 14.37
% Change in Per Capita Income 43.32 9.77 11.95 66.35
% Change in Per Capita Wealth 24.97 74.82 -659.19 105.78
Transformed Change in Per 3.3IE+08 6.92E+07 .53 4.49E+08
Capita Wealth
Change in Growth in percentage of 5.73 6.50 —17.93 33.45
Ethnic community residents who are
Composition Latino
Population % Change in Foreign-Bom 87.14 117.84 -100.00 827.69
Population
Growth by Transformed C. in Foreign-Rom 13.16 3.89 1.00 ‘ 30.47
Ethnicity Pop.
% Change in Latino Population 115.93 155.09 _. -76.92 1391.04
Transformed Change in Latino [3. I 7 4.42 ” .28 38. 32
Population
% Change in Non-Latino 22.98 50.86 -68.91 337.58
Population
Transformed Change in Non- 9.31 2.3 I .29 20.16
Latino Pop. 7
Ethnic Percent Latino in 1980 20.88 23.97 0 94.99
Composition Percent Latino in 1990 23.56 25.53 .56 98.03
Children Change in % Children in the -4.45 3.93 -14.73 8.68
Communit
Change in % Children (Latinos) 1.62 15.72 -60.77 100.00
Change in % Children (Non- -5.72 5.09 -29.21 7.37
Latinos)
Agricultural Agricultural Restructuring 1 36.97 9.88 ' .00 84,00
Restructuring Agricultural Restructuring 2 .00 1.00 -2.25902 1.89273
% Growth in Payroll Towards 37.10 46.49 -22.33 372.91
Hired Labor _
Transformed Change in Hired 7. 35 2.46 .82 I 9, 90
Labor Pg

 

 

 

194

 

 

 

 

Tal

 

195
Table 19 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

Standard
Variable Mean M83911 Minimum Maximum
Wages and Percentage Increase in 43.35 23.44 -7.52 88.79
Employment Employees
Per Worker Yearly Wage, 12181.35 1344.79 7702.01 16947.66
1980
% Growth in Per Worker 55.77 12.11 14.10 92.42
Wage
Human % High School Graduates 61.95 18.28 7.67 96.31
Capital (>25) in 1980
% College Graduates (>25 yrs. 1 1.07 7.74 0 41.91
old) in 1980
Housing % Growth in Housing Units 28.20 29.75 -105.77 247.71
Monthly Housing Costs, 1980 287.63 77.08 111.50 622.00
% Change in Housing Costs 51.69 8.13 25.34 71.20
% Units vacant in 1980 10.59 11.51 0 73.23
Transformed % Units vacant in 2.97 1.33 0 8.56
1980
Size of Place Geographic Area 20,0305 49,979.35 445 534,831
1
Transformed Geographic Area 3. 98 .46 2.65 5. 73
Total population, 1980 3742.68 2770.52 912 14,946
Wealth, 1980 Per Capita Income from 450.67 409.29 -12.28 3488.18
Wealth, 1980
_ Transformed Wealth, 1980 2.64 .28 1.86 3.55

 

 

APPENDIX E

Interview Schedule

The purpose of these interviews is to gain an understanding of the current economic and
social situations of rural California communities. These questions are designed to discover:

1) how community leaders perceive their communities, and the changes going on within their
communities (including economic and ethnic changes); 2) the social networks of community
leaders with each other and with outside organizations; and 3) the issues that leaders perceive
are of most importance for their communities. You have been asked to do this interview
because you have been identified by others as a leader in this community.

Before we begin, I want you to know that everything you tell me will be kept completely
confidential. I will not associate your name with any of your responses. Although I might
use quotes from your interview in my report on this community, your identity will remain
completely anonymous. You may choose not to answer any question, and may ask for
clarification of this study at any time. I will also provide you with my address and phone
number in case you have any questions in the future about this study. Do you have any
questions before we begin?

Do you mind if I tape record our interview?

Part 1. General Perceptions of the Community
How would you characterize your community?

How would you compare this community with neighboring communities? (Ask about other
communities studied. Exeter, Orange Cove, Cutler/Orosi Woodlake

Are there neighboring communities that are seen as similar to this community? What are
they like?

Are there neighboring communities that are seen as very different from this community?
What are they like?

What have been the biggest changes in this community over the last decade?

How did these changes begin?

What has been the response of community members?

Do all community members view these changes in similar ways?

Were particular people or organizations involved in bringing about or reacting to these
changes?

How do you think your community will be different in another ten years?

What types of retail establishments are in this community?

Where do people go for: groceries, doctor/medical services, dentist, optometrist, clothing,
gifts, banks, insurance?

What types of social organizations are available in this community? (Churches, work
organizations, charity organizations, children's clubs, athletic groups, etc.)

What types of opportunities are available in this community for: jobs, education, loans,
medical services?

Have these opportunities increased over the last decade? Why?

Do you think they will increase or decrease over the next decade? Why?

Part 2. Different Neighborhoods and Groups of the Community

196

 

What

Hov

Are

 

 

197

What are the neighborhoods/geographic areas that comprise this community?

How would you characterize the different types of people in this community? (by

occupation, ethnicity, political beliefs, etc.)
Can these groups be defined by membership in specific organizations?

Are they represented by different community leaders?
Are there some people in this community who do not voice much opinion in local

matters? Who? ,
Are there some community members who are more strongly or more weakly represented

in community decision-making?
Are there many differences between long-term residents and newcomers?

Who are leaders in this community? (Governmental, Organizational, Religious, etc.)

Who do they represent? How did they become leaders?
What issues have they worked on? What do they do in the community?
Do you know if these leaders are also involved in larger state, or national organizations?

Part 3. Economic Well-Being of the Community
How would you characterize the economic condition of this community?

What is the economic condition of this community compared to neighboring communities?

 

What factors do you think have been most influential in determining the economic conditions
of the community?

What are the main sources of employment?

Do you see more or less economic inequality in this community, compared to other
communities?

I’m going to list a series of items that might influence the economic well-being this
community. I would like you to estimate how much each of these has changed in the last
decade, how beneficial this change has been for the economic Well-being of the
community, and how detrimental this change has been for the economic well-being of the
community. I am asking both about the benefits and detriments of potential changes
because often one change will have both positive and negative effects. For example, one
of the items is employment in low-skill jobs. I’ll ask you to estimate how employment in
low-skill jobs has changed over the last decade, how beneficial this change has been for
the community, and how detrimental this change has Been for the community. Please feel
free to clarify or qualify your reSponses to these questions.

For comparison purposes, I am going to ask you to assign a number representing the amount
of change, benefit, or detriment you feel has occurred. This might seem confusing at
first, but I'll explain further, until you feel comfortable responding.

I would like you to treat the number 100 as a moderate value, with no upper limit, and zero
representing no change or effect. For example, if you think that employment in low-skill
jobs is about the same as it was a decade ago, you would give it a score of 100. In other
words, employment in low-skill jobs is 100% what it was a decade ago. If you think that
there is twice as much employment in low-skill jobs as there was a decade ago, you would
rate it at 200. If you think employment in low-skill jobs is half as much as it was a
decade ago, you would rate it a 50. If you think there is no longer any employment in
low-skill jobs, you would give it a score of zero.

Similarly, when I ask you how beneficial you think this change has been for the community,
a score of 100 would indicate that you think this change has been moderately beneficial
for this community, a score of 200 would indicate that this change has been twice as
much as moderately good for the community, while a score of 50 would indicate that you

think this change has been half as beneficial as moderate.

 

Yc

H1

 

 

 

 

duo. Cd OIL ooh.L..|...k..l I I C

 

 

198

You may use any number you want. There is no upper limit. We’ll practice a few times first.
After giving a numeric response, please feel free to qualify your answer. (Practice with a

few items, clarify the response.)

How much has (fill in from below) changed in the last decade in this community? (100 =
remained the same)

How beneficial has this change been for the economic well—being of the community? (100 =
moderately beneficial)

How detrimental has this change been for the economic well—being of the community? (100

= moderately detrimental)

employment in low—skill jobs (requiring less than a high school education)
employment in medium-skill jobs (requiring a high school degree, or some college)
employment in high skill jobs (requiring a college degree)

immigration of temporary workers from Mexico/Latin America

settlement of permanent residents from Mexico/Latin America

investment in this community from outside organizations

g. employment in locally-owned businesses

h. employment in businesses owned by individuals or corporations outside of this community
i. number of non-Latino residents in the community

j. number of Latino residents in the community

k. assistance of federal or state government agencies or officials

l. assistance of non-governmental organizations outside of this community

m. collaboration with other local communities on issues of mutual importance

n. collaboration among local groups for community development efforts

0. conflict among groups within this community

THOQPO‘P

Part 4. Migration into and out of the Community
Try to think of particular people you know who have moved into this community within the

last decade. Why have they come here?

Why have people stayed in this community? What makes it attractive?
Try to think of particular people you know who have moved outside of this community.
Why have they left? ' -'

What is the community doing to attract or discourage new residents? Are there any general
feelings about the ideal population growth?

I’m going to list a series of items that might attract people to this community. I would like
you to think of the people you know in this community, and estimate how important each
of these items was in attracting them to this community. Once again, I am going to ask
you to assign a number representing how important you think each item is. I would like
you to treat 100 as a moderate value, with no upper limit, and zero representing no
influence. For example, one of the items is the availability of low-skill jobs. If you think
that the availability of low-skill jobs has been a moderate influence in attracting most new
residents to the community, you would give it a score of 100. If you think that the
influence of low-skill jobs was twice as much as moderate, you would give it a score of
200. If you think the influence of low—skill jobs was half as much as moderate, you
would rate it a 50. If you think the availability of low-skill jobs had no influence in
attracting most new residents to this community, you would give it a score of zero. You
may use any number you want (28, 500, etc.). There is no upper limit. After giving a

numeric response, please feel free to qualify your answer.

How important do you think each of these is in attracting people to live in this community?
100 = moderately important)

a. sense of community

 

 

199

b. family proximity

c. low-skill job availability

(1. high-skill (college-level) job availability
e. medium-skill (high-school some college) job availability
f. inexpensive housing availability

g. middle-class housing availability

h. luxury housing availability

i. "small town" atmosphere

j. schools

k. ethnic composition

I. dislike of other communities (explain)

Now I’m going to ask you how influential a series of items has been in prompting people to
leave this community. Think of people you know who have left this community in the last 10
years. How influential do you think each of these is in prompting people to move out of this
community? (Once again, 100 means that you feel this factor has been moderately
important, zero means you feel this factor has not been important, etc.)

a. lack of low-skill jobs

b. lack of high-skill (college-level) jobs

0. lack of medium-skill (high-school some college) jobs

d. lack of inexpensive housing

e. lack of middle-class housing

f. lack of luxury housing

g. "small town" atmosphere

h. schools

1. ethnic composition

j. conflict with neighbors

k. feelings of discrimination

I. dislike of new community members

Part 5. Social Networks
Have you ever worked with federal or state governmental officials on issues affecting this

community? (Who, when, how often)? Do you feel that working with these individuals
has been beneficial for this community? Why or why not? _

Have you ever worked with federal or state non-governmental organizations on issues
affecting this community? (Which organizations, when, how often? Do you feel that
working with these groups has been beneficial for this community? Why or why not?

Have you ever worked with people from other communities on mutual issues? (Who, when,
how often)? Do you feel that working with these groups has been beneficial for this
community? Why or why not?

How often do you work with (political, business, organizational leaders) in this community?
Who do you work with? How often do you work with these leaders? Do you feel that
working with these individuals/groups has been beneficial for this community? Why or
why not?

How often do you work on issues that come from... (parents, local growers, business interests,
farm workers)? Who has brought issues to your attention in the past? Who do you

usually work with?

Part 6. Ethnic Climate . .
How are relations in this community between (the groups mentloned in part 2)?

Between Latinos and non~Latinos? Between recent immigrants and established residents?

Part 7. Pressing Issues

What are the most pressing issues in the community?

Where do you feel efforts and moneys should be put to benefit this community?

Do other members of the community share your opinion? Who might differ and why?

Part 8. Current Projects

 

 

 

200

What community projects or issues are you and other community leaders currently working
on? Why have you chosen these projects/issues? What is their purpose? What initiated
them?

What projects have you and other community members worked on in the past? What initiated
them? What was the result of these initiatives?

How important is it for leaders in this community to develop (low—skill, high-skill jobs?

Part 9. Personal Information

You were recommended for this interview because you are recognized as a leader in this
community. Who do you feel you represent? What groups are you affiliated with?

How long have you lived in this community?

Why did you decide to live here? How did you arrive where you are (in terms of your job
and location)?

Is there anything you would like to add to this interview? Are there other people in this

community that you think I should talk to as community leaders?

 

APPENDIX F

Codes Used For Qualitative Data Analysis

AGE

ALCOHOL
ATMOSPHERE
BUSINESS
CHILDREN
COMPARISON (OTHER CITIES)
CONFLICT
CRIME
DEVELOPIVIENT
EDUCATION
ETHNIC
EXODUS
FAMILY
FARMING
FARMWORK
FUTURE
GENDER
GOVERNMENT
HEALTH
HOUSING

HORIZONTAL SOCLAL CAPITAL
ILLEGAL

IMMIGRANTS

INVESTMENT

JOB S

LATERAL SOCLAL CAPITAL
POLICY

POVERTY

PREJU DICE

PROP 187

RELATIONS

SCHOOLS

SETTLEMENT

SOCIAL CLUBS

VERTICAL SOCIAL CAPITAL

WEALTH
ON (OBSERVATION NOTE)

MN (METHODOLOGICAL NOTE)
AM (ANALYTICAL MEMOS)

201

f‘.\(\1(iv

 

APPENDIX G

Models Controlling for Non-Latino, Non-White Population

Table 20. Prediction of Foreign-Bom Population Controlling for Non-Latino, Non—Whites

 

 

 

 

iPredictor B kg fig;
Agricultural Restructuring - l .004 .01 l .878
Agricultural Restructuring - 2 .591 .148 .012
Growth in hired labor payroll in county .025 .017 .813
Growth in wages in county .058 .182 .012
Growth in employment in county -.019 —.1 14 .1 17
Wages, 1980 .000 .033 .569
Housing costs, 1980 -.005 -.107 .176
Growth in housing costs —.017 -.035 .605
Housing growth .046 .353 .000
Vacancy rate .248 .085 .180
Geographical area —.298 -.033 .649
Population, 1980 .000 .063 .302
Growth in % children among Latinos -.040 —. 162 .005
% Latino/foreign-born, 1980 -.006 -.040 .580
% Non-Latino, non-white 12.721 .154 .008
(Constant) l l. 147 .002
R Square -21
Adjusted R Square - 1 7
202

 

 

 

 

 

 

21. Prediction of Latino Population Growth Controlling for N on-Latino N on-Whites

 

 

iPredictor B B_eta fig.

Agricultural Restructuring - 1 -.01 l -.024 .686

Agricultural Restructuring - 2 .635 .141 .007
Growth in hired labor payroll in county -.044 -.025 .677
Growth in wages in county .014 .038 .549
Growth in employment in county .005 .025 .688
Wages, 1980 .000 .014 .776
Housing costs, 1980 -.010 —.176 .010
Growth in housing costs .000 .000 .998
Housing growth .049 .334 .000
Vacancy rate .261 .079 .152
Geographical area —.020 -.002 .975
Population, 1980 .000 .041 .439
Growth in % children among Latinos .019 .067 .182
% Latino/foreign—bom, 1980 -.052 -.285 .000
% Growth in Foreign-bom population .428 .379 .000
% Non-Latino, non-white - 9 .427 - . l 0 1 . 04 8
(Constant) 9.312 -. 101 .008
R Square -4 1

. 3 7

Adjusted R Square

 

 

 

Table 22. Prediction of Non-Latino Population, Controlling for Non-Latino Non-Whites

 

 

iPredictor B BLta Sig.
Agricultural Restructuring - 1 .000 —.001 .978
Agricultural Restructuring - 2 .044 .019 .514
Growth in hired labor payroll in county .014 .016 .643
Growth in wages in county .006 .032 .354
Growth in employment in county .000 .002 .948
Wages, 1980 .000 .003 .906
Housing costs, 1980 -.001 -.046 .231
Growth in housing costs .023 .081 .012
Housing growth .063 .803 .000
Vacancy rate .118 .068 .026
Geographical area -.073 -.01 3 .697
Population, 1980 .000 .051 .082
Growth in % children among non-Latinos .025 .054 .1 13
% Latino/foreign—bom, 1980 -.027 —.277 .000
% Growth in Foreign-born population -.005 -.009 .763
% Non-Latino, non-white 8 . 02 9 . 1 6 4 . 000
(Constant) 6.434 .000
R Square .8 2
. 8 1

Adjusted R Square

 

Table 23. Prediction of Ethnic Transformation Controlling for Non-Latino, Non-Whites

 

Predictor

% Growth in Foreign-bom population
% Growth in Latino population

% Growth in Non-Latino population
% Latino/foreign-bom, 1980

% Latino/foreign-bom, 1980, squared
% Non-Latino, non-white

   

Adjusted R Square

Ta

.049

E Be_ta
.370 .221
.897 .609
-l.800 —.640
.230 .850
-.005 —.779
-7.993 -.061
9.185
.75
.75

.000
.000
.000
.000
.000

.000

 

 

 

205

 

Table 24. Prediction of Community Development Controlling for Non-Latino, Non-Whites

 

 

 

rPredictor B Be_ta figs
Agricultural Restructuring - l -.003 -.027 .531
Agricultural Restructuring - 2 -.047 -.046 .335
Growth in wages in county .015 .185 .001
Growth in employment in county .007 .153 .006
Wages, 1980 .000 -.031 .462
% Growth in Foreign-born population -.057 -.221 .000
% Growth in Latino population -.013 -.059 .272
% Growth in Non-Latino population .123 .282 .000
1980 % of Adults with High School Degree .023 .407 .000
1980 % of Adults with College Degree -.005 -.037 .602
Geographical area .024 .010 .849
Population, 1980 .000 -.036 .416
Growth in % children in community -.022 -.O87 .072
Interaction: wage growth x non-Latino Growth .003 .060 .304
Interaction: wage growth x Foreign-Bom Growth -.004 -.179 .001
Interaction: job growth x non-Latino Growth -.001 -.069 .256
Interaction: job growth x Foreign—Bom Growth .002 .177 .003
Interaction: ag. restr. 1 x non-Latino Growth .003 .049 .293
Interaction: ag. restr. l x Foreign-Bom Growth .002 .058 .181
Interaction: ag. restr. 2 x non—Latino Growth .020 .048 .349
Interaction: ag. restr. 2 x Foreign-Bom Growth -.006 -.023 .636
% Non-Latino, non—white -2.547 -.127 .004
(Constant) -l . 124 .026
R Square -5 7
Adjusted R Square - 5 3

 

APPENDIX H

 

Predictions of the Components of Community Development

Table 25. Prediction of Growth in Per Capita Income

 

 

 

Variable .1; Bier E
Ethnic Composition Change ( % Latino) -.211 -.141 .063
Restructuring 1 - more large scale -.025 —.024 .609
Restructuring 2 - intensification .083 .008 .877
Per Worker Wage Growth .099 . 124 .036
Employment Growth . 103 .248 .000
Mean Wages, 1980 .000 .002 .961
Foreign-Born Population Growth -.507 -.202 .001
Latino Population Growth .283 .128 .066
Non—Latino Population Growth .261 .062 .434
% High School Graduates among adults, 1980 .1 12 .210 .026
% College Graduates among adults, 1980 .179 .142 .069
Geographic Area -.873 -.038 .514
Population, 1980 .000 —.034 .489
Growth in the % children in the community -.469 —. 189 .001
Interaction: Wage growth * Non-Latino Growth .021 .046 .479
Interaction: Wage growth * F-Bom Growth -.052 ._ -.244 .000
Interaction: Employment growth * NL Growth -.001 ' —.006 .930
Interaction: Employment growth * FB Growth .016 .169 .009
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring-l * NL Growth .032 .062 .235
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring—l ’1‘ FB Growth .01 1 .043 .370
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring-2 * NL Growth .214 .052 .362
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring-2 * FB Growth —. 104 —.042 .429
(Constant) 34.127 6.259
R-Square . 4 6

Adjusted R-Square ~42

 

206

 

207

Table 26. Prediction of Growth in Poverty

 

 

Variable B M igl
Ethnic Composition Change ( % Latino) .003 .003 .971
Restructuring l - more large scale —.015 —.020 .701
Restructuring 2 - intensification .416 .056 .337
Per Worker Wage Growth -.103 -. 176 .007
Employment Growth -.044 -.144 .033
Mean Wages, 1980 .000 .002 .975
Foreign—Bom Population Growth .395 .213 .002
Latino Population Growth —.066 - 040 .595
Non-Latino Population Growth -.493 - 158 .069
% High School Graduates among adults, 1980 —.150 - 379 .000
% College Graduates among adults, 1980 .075 .081 .345
Geographic Area .896 .053 .409
Population, 1980 .000 .065 .225
Growth in the % children in the community .379 .206 .001
Interaction: Wage growth * Non-Latino Growth -.037 —. 109 .126
Interaction: Wage growth * F—Bom Growth .032 .202 .003
Interaction: Employment growth * NL Growth .013 .103 .172
Interaction: Employment growth * FB Growth -.013 -. 177 .013
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring—1 * NL Growth -.021 -.055 .335
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring-l * FB Growth -.002 -.01 l .837
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring-2 * NL Growth -.215 —.O7l .259
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring-2 * FB Growth .034 .019 .748
(Constant) 9.258 . .037
R-Square - 3 5

Adjusted R-Square 30

 

 

208

 

Table 27. Prediction of Growth in Unemployment

 

 

 

 

Variable B BLta ‘s—i'g
Ethnic Composition Change ( % Latino) .058 .118 .067
Restructuring l - more large scale .014 .042 _301
Restructuring 2 - intensification .072 .022 .624
Per Worker Wage Growth —.01 l -.O44 .377
Employment Growth -.006 -.045 .391
Mean Wages, 1980 .000 -.024 .551
Foreign—Born Population Growth .044 .054 .309
Latino Population Growth —.008 —.012 .845
Non-Latino Population Growth -.258 -.188 .006
% High School Graduates among adults, 1980 -.093 -.537 .000
% College Graduates among adults, 1980 -.010 -.023 .724
Geographic Area . .287 .038 .439
Population, 1980 .000 .065 .119
Growth in the % children in the community —.047 -.058 .204
Interaction: Wage growth * Non—Latino Growth .002 .012 .832
Interaction: Wage growth * F-Bom Growth .001 .016 .757
Interaction: Employment growth * NL Growth .001 .016 .786
Interaction: Employment growth * FB Growth -.001 —.028 .609
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring-l * NL Growth -.013 -.076 .086
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring-1 * FB Growth -.004 —.041 .320
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring-2 * NL Growth -.026 —.019 .690
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring—2 * FB Growth .061 r g .076 .094
(Constant) 8.086 .000
R-Square - 6 1

Adjusted R-Square -58

 

209

 

Table 28. Prediction of Growth in Wealth

 

 

 

 

Variable a Be_ta El
Ethnic Composition Change ( % Latino) .739 .064 .480
Restructuring l - more large scale .338 .044 .443
Restructuring 2 - intensification .842 .01 l .864
Per Worker Wage Growth .557 .092 . 198
Employment Growth -.077 -.024 .743
Mean Wages, 1980 .000 -.022 .699
Foreign-Bom Population Growth -1.011 -.053 .481
Latino Population Growth -1.273 -.075 .366
N on-Latino Population Growth 4.581 .140 .137
% High School Graduates among adults, 1980 2.231 .538 .000
% College Graduates among adults, 1980 -1.254 -.129 .169
Geographic Area —5.046 -.029 .684
Population, 1980 .003 .117 .049
Growth in the % children in the community -2.987 -.156 .016
Interaction: Wage growth * Non-Latino Growth .140 .039 .614
Interaction: Wage growth * F-Born Growth -.065 —.O4O .588
Interaction: Employment growth * NL Growth -. 198 -.152 .066
Interaction: Employment growth * FB Growth .088 .1 19 .125
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring-1 * NL Growth .015 .004 .954
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring-l * FB Growth -.O47 -.023 .691
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring-2 * NL Growth .665 .021 .758I
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring—2 * FB Growth .000 .000 1.000
(Constant) —88.456 .079
R-Square - 2 3

Adjusted R-Square - 1 6

 

 

 

210

 

Table 29. Prediction of Growth in the Percentage of High School Graduates

 

Ethnic Composition Change ( % Latino) -.359 -.363 .000
Restructuring 1 - more large scale -.012 —.018 .728
Restructuring 2 - intensification -.379 —.057 .323
Per Worker Wage Growth .028 .053 .41 1
Employment Growth .024 .088 . 186
Mean Wages, 1980 .000 —.080 .120
Foreign-Bom Population Growth -.161 - 097 . 150
Latino Population Growth .026 .018 .816
N on—Latino Population Growth .704 .253 .004
% High School Graduates among adults, 1980 —. 156 - 442 .000
% College Graduates among adults, 1980 .004 .005 .955
Geographic Area 1.710 .1 13 .076
Population, 1980 .000 .033 .538
Growth in the % children in the community .244 .149 .01 1
Interaction: Wage growth * Non-Latino Growth .01 l .036 .606
Interaction: Wage growth * F—Bom Growth -.002 -.014 .830
Interaction: Employment growth * NL Growth .008 .072 .338
Interaction: Employment growth * FB Growth .003 .055 .436
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring-1 * NL Growth .021 .060 .285
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring-1 * FB Growth .015 .085 .106
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring-2 * NL Growth .321 .1 19 .057
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring-2 * FB Growth —.070 -.043 .461
(Constant) 9.854 .012
R-Square - 3 6
. 3 1

Adjusted R-Square

 

 

 

 

 

211

 

Table 30. Prediction of the Growth in the Percentage of College Graduates

 

 

Variable a me E
Ethnic Composition Change ( % Latino) -.052 -.093 .292
Restructuring l - more large scale -.018 -.047 .396
Restructuring 2 — intensification .082 .022 .724
Per Worker Wage Growth .096 .324 .000
Employment Growth .009 .057 .426
Mean Wages, 1980 .000 -.026 .632
Foreign-Bom Population Growth -. 133 -. 142 .051
Latino Population Growth ‘ -.051 . -.O62 .439
Non-Latino Population Growth ’ .073 '- .046 .617
% High School Graduates among adults, 1980 .057 .287 .009
% College Graduates among adults, 1980 -.1 14 -.241 .008
Geographic Area .024 .003 .967
Population, 1980 .000 —.022 .696
Growth in the % children in the community .137 .148 .019
Interaction: Wage growth * Non-Latino Growth .005 .027 .726
Interaction: Wage growth * F—Bom Growth —.005 —.O67 .345
Interaction: Employment growth * NL Growth .003 .05 5 .493
Interaction: Employment growth * FB Growth .004 .1 10 .142
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring—1 * NL Growth —.006 -.O31 .61 1
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring-1 * FB Growth .008 .084 .139
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring-2 * NL Growth —.160 -. 105 .l 17
Interaction: Ag. Restructuring-2 * FB Growth .078 -, .084 .173
(Constant) .322 . .892
R -Square 2 7

Adjusted R-Square .21