_ III III III III III III IIII II II IIIIII III IIIII II II IIIII LIBRARY was”? 9’ University! "HFQ’F‘ This is to certify that the thesis entitled MINORITY-GROUP STATUS AND FERTILITY: A STUDY OF JAPANESE AND CHINESE IN HAWAII AND CALIFORNIA presented by Ryoko Nishida has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.A. . Sociology degree 1n jfwMé/Qvluw rofessor Date I / 9W é/ 77? 0—7639 OVERDUE FINES ARE 25; PER DA: . FER ITEM Return to book drop to regime this checkout from your record. MINORITY-GROUP STATUS AND FERTILITY: A STUDY OF JAPANESE AND CHINESE AMERICANS IN HAWAII AND CALIFORNIA BY Ryoko Nishida A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Sociology 1979 ABSTRACT MINORITY-GROUP STATUS AND FERTILITY: A STUDY OF JAPANESE AND CHINESE AMERICANS IN HAWAII AND CALIFORNIA BY Ryoko Nishida The assimilationist perspective of human fertility holds that minority-majority differentials result only from group differences in composition by social, demographic, and economic factors. The minority-status perspective, complementary to the first, holds that minority-group membership exerts a net depressant effect. Furthermore, an independent minority-status effect on fertility was hypothesized to vary inversely with the size of a minority group relative to the majority, since parallel economic institutions facilitating social mobility were thought to be more fully evolved where the minority is relatively more numerous. These hypotheses were examined for Japanese and Chinese in Hawaii and California by using the 1970 Census public-use sample. Within each state, no support for the minority-status perspective was found. However, the fertility of Chinese and Japanese was lower in California Ryoko Nishida than in Hawaii, where both groups shared a larger proportion of the state population. The implication for future research are explored. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my appreciation to Dr. Nan Johnson, Dr. John Useem, and Dr. Allan Beegle for serving as members of my M.A. thesis committee. I am especially indebted to Dr. Nan Johnson, who served as thesis adviser. Her keen insight, encouragement, and helpful suggestions made this thesis possible. I am also indebted to Dr. John Useem for his guidance from the beginning of my study at Michigan State University. The data upon which this study was based were from the 1970 Census public-use sample, which was provided through the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The Agricultural Experiment Station of Michigan State University is acknow- ledged for making the data available. I gratefully acknowledge Dale Jager, computer assistant of the Department of Sociology, for his invaluable contribution to computer programming. I am also grateful to Mike Price for his computer assistance. Finally, I am deeply appreciative of my parents, who supported me in many ways throughout my study at Michigan State University. I am grateful to Tetsuya Imai and Marcos ii Hatada for their useful discussion. Also, I wish to thank all of my friends who encouraged and helped me during my study at Michigan State University. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . INTRODUCTION PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS Status-Attainment and Fertility: Two Perspectives . . Minority-group Size an Status Attainment . Minority-group Size, Fertility . . . STATEMENT OF METHODOLOGY FINDINGS . . CONCLUSION . APPENDICES Appendix HYPOTHESBS Status Attainment, and A. Correlation Coefficients for Hawaii . . . B. Correlation Coefficients for California . LIST OF REFERENCES . . iv Page 13 17 19 24 28 44 50 51 52 Table 1. A-l. B-lo LIST OF TABLES Means, Standard Deviations, and Sizes for Three Ethnic Groups in Hawaii . . . . . . . Means, Standard Deviations, and Sizes for Three Ethnic Groups in California . . . . . Hierarchical Regression of Children Ever Born upon Compositional Variables and Ethnicity, Hawaii 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C I Hierarchical Regression of Children Ever Born upon Compositional Variables and Ethnicity, California 0 I I O O O O O O I O O O O O O Hierarchical Regression of Children Ever Born upon Compositional Variables and State: Japanese in Hawaii and California . . . . . Hierarchical Regression of Children Ever Born upon Compositional Variables and State: Chinese in Hawaii and California . . . . . Hierarchical Regression of Children Ever Born upon Compositional Variables and State: Whites in Hawaii and California . . . . . . Hierarchical Regression of Children Ever Born upon Compositional Variables and State: Whites in Hawaii and California (Data weighted) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Correlation Coefficients for Hawaii . . . . . Correlation Coefficients for California . . . Page 29 30 32 33 37 38 41 42 50 51 INTRODUCTION Recent studies of minority status have attributed social significance to such structural characteristics of minority groups as group size and frequency of contact between majority and minority group members. Blau (1977) stressed that group size has a significant bearing upon the extent of people's ingroup and intergroup interactions; specifically, he reasoned that the greater the size of the group, the smaller the rate of intergroup interactions and the greater the rate of ingroup interactions. Fischer (1975) proposed that the increase in the size of a minority population permits the development of parallel institutions, which may give support to the members of the minority group. Consequently, it is reasonable to hypothesize that an increase in the size of a minority group might foster the development of economic, political, and social infra- structures making upward social mobility more accessible. Differences in relative group size have been inti- mately related to differences in social mobility and political power between two subpopulations of Japanese Americans in the United States. Although 72 percent of the Japanese Americans in the U.S. in 1970 were concentrated in Hawaii and California, they comprised a significantly large minority (28.3%) of the former but an extremely small minority (1.1%) of the latter state population (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1973a, l973b). The socioeconomic status of Japanese in Hawaii was higher than in California. For example, in 1970, the Japanese held 34.2 percent of all pro- fessional occupations in Hawaii, more than their share of the state pOpulation (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1973c, 1973d). Similarly, Samuels (1970, p. 26) reported that in 1965, 60.9 percent of the dentists, 60.0 percent of the optometrists, 26.4 percent of the architects, 25.0 percent of the physicians, and 24.3 percent of the lawyers in Honolulu were of Japanese ancestry. Petersen (1971, pp. 118- 119) presented a similar report from the membership lists of various professional associations in Hawaii. The higher social status held by the Japanese in Hawaii is reflected in the fact that Japanese names appear on the membership rolls of the high-status country clubs, while their counterparts in California are still barred from participating in those elite settings (Kitano 1974, p. 513). Numbers play an important role in the political power of the Japanese in Hawaii. Kitano (1976, pp. 179-180) cited the fact that the tension brought about by World War II did not lead to mass detention of Japanese in Hawaii such as occurred on the mainland, since in 1940 the Japanese comprised 37.3 percent of the total population of the islands and were vital to its economy and military operation. On the contrary, the numerically small minority of the Japanese on the mainland was powerless and vulnerable to anti-Japanese agitations. After World War II, with the rise of the Nisei (second-generation Japanese), the Japanese in Hawaii made further political gains. In the 1971-1972 Who's Who in Government in Hawaii, Japanese Americans occu- pied eleven out of twenty-three seats in the State Senate, and comprised over 50 percent of the membership of the House of Representatives (Kitano 1976, p. 183). The political power of the Japanese in Hawaii was well recognized with the election of Governor George R. Ariyoshi and Lieutenant Governor Nelson K. Doi in 1974 (Nordyke 1977, p. 38). Being numerically small, the Japanese in California have not amassed such political power. The Chinese Americans in Hawaii and California also make up a socially significant minority. In 1970, 39 percent of the Chinese population in the United States resided in California and 12 percent resided in Hawaii (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 1974), representing 0.9 percent and 6.8 percent of the state.population, respectively (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1973a, 1973b). Despite the small size relative to the Japanese and the whites in Hawaii, Hawaii's Chinese have come to play an important role socially, economically, and politically (Cheng 1953, Kung 1962, Hsu 1971). Although the Chinese were the first con- tract laborers to come to Hawaii, in a few decades they advanced from manual labor on the plantation to trading and service activities in the city. As early as 1889, the Chinese practically monopolized the restaurant business, the butchering of pork, and the pedaling of cake (Fuchs 1961, p. 91): and in that year 60 percent of the licenses issued to retail merchants and 20 percent of those given to whole- sale merchants in Hawaii went to Chinese (Lind 1938, p. 258). During the 19205 and the 19305, the Chinese steadily realized economic success in these small businesses. Between 1920 and 1940, the percentage of professional workers among the Chinese of Hawaii leaped from 1.5 percent to 5.7 percent and the percentage of clerical workers increased from 11.5 to 28.7; and in 1940 six out of every ten Chinese Hawaiians were in the professional, proprietary, clerical, or skilled occupations (Fuchs 1961, p. 104). By 1950 the median annual income of the Chinese Hawaiians exceeded that of the whites by more than $100 a year (Fuchs 1961, p. 437). Today the Chinese in Hawaii are active in politics, and occupy important positions in the civil service system; they operate two banks and many other busi— nesses; they enjoy a better than average income and are well-established in such professions as law, medicine, dentistry, architecture, and engineering (Cheng 1953, Kung 1962, Hsu 1971). Compared to Hawaii's Chinese, upward social mobility among the Chinese in California is a limited one, and many of them still remain in Chinatown-dependent employment (Lyman 1974). Besides the economic and political differences between Hawaii and California for these two oriental popu- lations, Bonacich (1972, 1973, 1978) and Kitano (1976) noted that the degree of ethnic antagonism has been markedly lower in Hawaii than in California. To this point, Bonacich (1978) reasoned that the most critical factor has been the absence of a sizable white working class in Hawaii as com- pared to California, since it was the white working class that Opposed Asian immigration and pushed for exclusion. This absence has made the upward social mobility of the Chinese and the Japanese easier in Hawaii than in California. Given the independent significance of minority- group membership for status attainment and the importance of socioeconomic status for fertility, social demographers have sought to investigate the relational mechanisms linking minority-group membership to fertility. There exist two complementary perspectives on this issue. One is the assi- milatiOnist position, which argues that minority-group membership affects fertility only indirectly by determining one's social, demographic, and economic characteristics. The other is the minority-status position, which holds that while differences in social, demographic, and economic composition partially explain minority-majority differences in fertility, membership in minority or majority groupings exerts an effect sui generis. Previous research on this issue has been largely confined to relatively disadvantaged minorities having high fertility; such as, blacks and Mexican Americans (Lee and Lee 1952, 1959; Sly 1970; Roberts and Lee 1974; Ritchey 1975; Marcum and Bean 1976; Lopez and Sabagh 1978). However, Japanese Americans and Chinese Americans are "advantaged" minority groups, simultaneously enjoying greater socioeconomic and educational attainment and lower fertility than the majority population (Gold- scheider and Uhlenberg 1969; Rindfuss and Sweet 1977). Since the social, economic, and political attainments of minority- group members are hypothesized to vary directly with minority-group size, and since relative group size is a crucial structural difference between Hawaii and California residents who are Chinese or Japanese, the purpose of the present study is to examine the effect of minority status upon Japanese-American and Chinese-American fertility in those two states. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS Status-Attainment and Fertility: Two Perspectives The relationship between minority-group status and fertility has been viewed from two complementary perspec- tives. The first, known as the "assimilationist position," holds that fertility differences between minority and majority groups are due to the differences in their social, economic, and demographic characteristics (Lee and Lee 1952, 1959; Gordon 1964; Thomlinson 1965). Minority-group status may affect fertility only indirectly by structuring the social locations and attributes of its members. An implication of this perspective is that when social, econo- mic, and demographic characteristics of minority and majority groups become similar, minority-group fertility should converge to that of the majority. In other words, when Japanese and Chinese immigrants, starting out from the bottom of the status hierarchy in America, are culturally and structurally assimilated into the dominant society, the fertility patterns of the Japanese and the Chinese should approach those of the native whites. A second approach, the "minority-status perspective," cedes the relevance of compositional factors in explaining differences in the fertility of minority and majority popu- lations. However, minority-group status itself is thought to represent unique barriers to upward social mobility. Therefore, minority persons who have desired and/or attained upward social mobility are thought to experience greater insecurities which "operate to depress fertility below majority levels" (Goldscheider and Uhlenberg 1969, p. 372). According to this perspective, it is not just the high edu- cational attainment or the late age at first marriage characterizing persons of Japanese and Chinese ancestry which promotes the low fertility of these minority groups; it is also the fact of being Japanese or Chinese in a Caucasian society. An implication of this latter perspective is that even when the social, demographic, and economic characteristics of minority and majority groups are rendered similar--either through statistical controls or through social change--the fertility of the minority group shall remain distinctive. Both Japanese and Chinese minorities in the United States have historically encountered strong barriers to economic and political assimilation. The full-scale Chinese immigration to the U.S. occurred after the discovery of gold in California in 1849. The exaggerated tales of the gold discovery incited a number of Chinese to migrate long A second approach, the "minority-status perspective," cedes the relevance of compositional factors in explaining differences in the fertility of minority and majority popu- lations. However, minority-group status itself is thought to represent unique barriers to upward social mobility. Therefore, minority persons who have desired and/or attained upward social mobility are thought to experience greater insecurities which "operate to depress fertility below majority levels" (Goldscheider and Uhlenberg 1969, p. 372). According to this perspective, it is not just the high edu- cational attainment or the late age at first marriage characterizing persons of Japanese and Chinese ancestry which promotes the low fertility of these minority groups; it is also the fact of being Japanese or Chinese in a Caucasian society. An implication of this latter perspective is that even when the social, demographic, and economic characteristics of minority and majority groups are rendered similar--either through statistical controls or through social change--the fertility of the minority group shall remain distinctive. Both Japanese and Chinese minorities in the United States have historically encountered strong barriers to economic and political assimilation. The full-scale Chinese immigration to the U.S. occurred after the discovery of gold in California in 1849. The exaggerated tales of the gold discovery incited a number of Chinese to migrate long distances in order to make a quick fortune. Similarly, the importation of Chinese laborers to Hawaii began in 1852. The Chinese were first welcomed as cheap and hard-working laborers. They were employed in mines, on railroads, on farms, and in domestic service. In Hawaii, they worked as contract laborers on the sugar plantations. However, the Chinese immigration in great numbers aroused the fear and animosity of the host society. As early as 1852, the Gover- nor of California advised that restrictions be placed upon them, claiming that "Chinese coolies lowered the standard of living, they were unassimilable, they were heathens, they came only to take American money, and, unless checked, they would eventually overturn the state" (Kitano 1976, p. 15). During the depression of the 18705, the Chinese were faced with various kinds of agitation and attacks against them, particularly in California (Sung 1967; Lyman 1974). The Chinese became scapegoats as a consequence of the heated economic competition with white laborers, especially with the Irish miners who came to the West Coast. After three decades of anti-Chinese agitation, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was passed by Congress. With the annexation of Hawaii to the U.S. in 1900, immigration of Chinese labor to Hawaii was also prohibited. Faced with prejudice and discrimination, the Chinese were driven into employment which produced little direct competition with whites; such as, laundries, restaurants, 10 and small retail stores (Lee 1960; Kung 1962; Light 1972). Disadvantaged in the pursuit of social mobility through legitimate enterprises, the Chinese also sought compensatory livelihoods in vice industries. The great influx of white males into the U.S. from Southern and Eastern EurOpe after 1880 created a significant demand for prostitution, which was met by the syndicated brothels in Chinatowns from 1880 until the end of World War I (Light 1977). The Japanese immigration started after 1882 and filled the vacuum created by the exclusion of Chinese immigrants. At first welcomed as an important supply of agricultural labor, the Japanese began to encounter signi- ficant forms of economic and political discrimination as their numbers increased and as they entered more directly into competition against white laborers. In 1913, the State of California implemented the Alien Land Law, placing severe restrictions upon the lease of agricultural land by Japanese. The Law was amended in 1920 to prohibit Japanese ownership of farms (Ichihashi 1932; Iwata 1962; Petersen 1971; Kitano 1976). A5 a consequence, the number of Japanese employed in agriculture declined precipitously. This decline was accelerated by the passage of the Immi- gration Act of 1924, which barred the entry of all Japanese into the United States except for temporary migration. Faced with discriminatory barriers, those who left agricul- ture were also driven into such small businesses in Japanese 10 and small retail stores (Lee 1960; Kung 1962; Light 1972). Disadvantaged in the pursuit of social mobility through legitimate enterprises, the Chinese also sought compensatory livelihoods in vice industries. The great influx of white males into the U.S. from Southern and Eastern Europe after 1880 created a significant demand for prostitution, which was met by the syndicated brothels in Chinatowns from 1880 until the end of WOrld War I (Light 1977). The Japanese immigration started after 1882 and filled the vacuum created by the exclusion of Chinese immigrants. At first welcomed as an important supply of agricultural labor, the Japanese began to encounter signi- ficant forms of economic and political discrimination as their numbers increased and as they entered more directly into competition against white laborers. In 1913, the State of California implemented the Alien Land Law, placing severe restrictions upon the lease of agricultural land by Japanese. The Law was amended in 1920 to prohibit Japanese ownership of farms (Ichihashi 1932; Iwata 1962; Petersen 1971; Kitano 1976). As a consequence, the number of Japanese employed in agriculture declined precipitously. This decline was accelerated by the passage of the Immi- gration Act of 1924, which barred the entry of all Japanese into the United States except for temporary migration. Faced with discriminatory barriers, those who left agricul- ture were also driven into such small businesses in Japanese 11 communities as restaurants, small shops, laundries, hotels, and contract gardening (Light 1972; Kitano 1976). The Japanese and the Chinese immigrants who chose to remain in the United States faced political discrimination. Laws were passed to prohibit intermarriage with the Japanese and the Chinese (Ichihashi 1932; Kitano 1976; Lyman 1978). Oriental school children were forced to attend segregated schools (Ichihashi 1932; Kung 1962; Kitano 1976). Until 1943, the foreign-born Chinese had permanent resident status but not the right of naturalization, a privilege denied to foreign-born Japanese until the end of World War II. The most overt form of political discrimination against oriental Americans, however, occurred after the U.S. declared war upon Japan in December 1941. By August 1942, more than 110,000 persons of Japanese ancestry on the West Coast mainland had been evacuated from their homes and placed in detention camps (Kitano 1976, p. 72). The majority of the evacuees were American citizens by birth. After World War II, the Japanese-American and the Chinese-American populations made significant gains in their social, economic, and political status. Both the Japanese and the Chinese stressed formal education as a cultural value. By 1960, the Japanese ranked highest in educational status, and the Chinese ranked third, just behind the whites (Schmid and Nobbe 1965). These gains in educational attainment were reflected in their occupational distributions. 12 In 1960, Japanese ranked first in occupational status, followed by Chinese and whites; and Japanese and Chinese ranked second and third respectively in income status, following whites (Schmid and Nobbe 1965). Political discri- mination was also attenuated when laws were changed to permit the naturalization of foreign-born Japanese and Chinese. In 1943, the Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed; and special laws were passed to effect the entry of brides, refugees, displaced persons, and scientific or technically trained personnel. In 1952, the MacCarran-Walters Act lifted the ban on Japanese immigration by establishing an annual entry quota of one-sixth of one percent of the number of persons claiming Japanese national origin in the 1920 U.S. Census. Although the outcome of the MacCarran-Walters Act was to perpetuate the ethnic discrimination producing the national-origin composition observed in 1920, the Immigration Act of 1965 abolished the national-origin quota system and with it, the institutionalized preference for non-Asiatic immigrants. The upward mobility of the Chinese and the Japanese over the past three decades has not been an unlimited one. In California, Japanese have not achieved incomes commen- surate to those of whites having similar education and experience (Kitano 1976, p. 92). In both private and public sectors, Chinese Americans are under-utilized; and promotion to senior managerial positions and directorships 13 is limited, particularly on the mainland (Lyman 1974, pp. 138-147). United States Japanese and Chinese have been seen as "middleman minorities," who concentrate in intermediate-level occupations and function as a buffer between the business elites and the masses (Blalock 1967; Loewen 1971; Bonacich 1973; Kitano 1974). Kurokawa (1970, pp. 131-133) argued that the development of middleman- minority statuses occurs as an adaptive response of a cohesive minority group to economic discrimination. Given the historic pattern of economic and political discrimina- tion against the Japanese and the Chinese, it is reasonable to infer that greater feelings of insecurity and greater deferments of childbearing may characterize those who seek social mobility and may depress their fertility below majority levels. Minority-group Size and Status Attainment A truism long found in the sociological literature is that the intensity of prejudice and discrimination against a racial or ethnic minority varies directly with the relative size of the minority population (Williams 1947; Allport 1954). Blalock (1967) argued that the motivation of the majority to discriminate arises from two sources: the perceived threats of economic competition and of political power that are posed by the minority. A minority group representing a minute prOportion of the total population is not thought to constitute a perceived economic threat. On 14 the contrary, the perceived threat of economic sanctions, split labor markets, or business monopolies created by a minority group is thought to vary directly with its percen- tage of the total population and to be most intense when the relative proportions of minority and majority populations are nearly equal (Blalock 1967, pp. 147-150). For societies where there exists universal suffrage and where each person casts one and only one vote, a growth in the proportion of a minority population could be interpreted as a threat to political domination of the majority. Provided that these two motivations to discriminate against the minority become embodied in social action, one would expect a socioeconomic- status gap disfavoring the minority to vary directly with its relative size of the total population. Empirical inquiry into this question has been largely limited to comparisons of socioeconomic attainments for blacks and whites (Turner 1951; Blalock 1956, 1957; Glenn 1963, 1964; Brown and Fuguitt 1972). Blalock's thesis relating the proportion of a minority group to the minority- majority socioeconomic gap has not been tested with respect to Japanese or Chinese suprpulations since it was thought inapplicable to middleman minorities: Where the minority can find a special niche for itself, direct competition with most members of the dominant group may be reduced, provided that large numbers of the dominant group are not motivated to fill these positions. Under these conditions, the minority may not face severe discrimination except in times of depression, when a labor surplus encourages dominant-group members to take over positions held by the minority (Blalock 1967, pp. 149-150). 14 the contrary, the perceived threat of economic sanctions, split labor markets, or business monopolies created by a minority group is thought to vary directly with its percen- tage of the total population and to be most intense when the relative preportions of minority and majority populations are nearly equal (Blalock 1967, pp. 147-150). For societies where there exists universal suffrage and where each person casts one and only one vote, a growth in the prOportion of a minority population could be interpreted as a threat to political domination of the majority. Provided that these two motivations to discriminate against the minority become embodied in social action, one would expect a socioeconomic- status gap disfavoring the minority to vary directly with its relative size of the total p0pulation. Empirical inquiry into this question has been largely limited to comparisons of socioeconomic attainments for blacks and whites (Turner 1951; Blalock 1956, 1957; Glenn 1963, 1964; Brown and Fuguitt 1972). Blalock's thesis relating the proportion of a minority group to the minority- majority socioeconomic gap has not been tested with respect to Japanese or Chinese subpopulations since it was thought inapplicable to middleman minorities: Where the minority can find a special niche for itself, direct competition with most members of the dominant group may be reduced, provided that large numbers of the dominant group are not motivated to fill these positions. Under these conditions, the minority may not face severe discrimination except in times of depression, when a labor surplus encourages dominant-group members to take over positions held by the minority (Blalock 1967, pp. 149-150). 15 Bonacich (1973), however, stressed the economic competition encountered by middleman minority groups in interaction with clientele, business, and labor. She cited as an example the successful market gardening of Japanese on the mainland West Coast, which brought them into conflict with white super- ordinate business interests and led to the 1913 Alien Land Law. Bonacich (1973) further emphasized that the develop- ment of a dual economy could protect the minority from majority hostility by allowing the former to regulate internal competition and distribution of group resources. In further contrast to Blalock, Fischer (1975, pp. 1330- 1334) argued that the development of a dual economy was partially dependent upon minority-group size; he held that the larger the size of a minority group, the more likely it is to attain a critical mass necessary to support the evolution of parallel institutions (a segregated school, an ethnic church, a foreign language newspaper, or a mutual aid society). These latter structures then become vehicles of communication or places of assemblage which reinforce minority-group solidarity and promote self-determined social mobility. Blau (1977) offered additional insight into the reasons why increases in the relative proportion of a minority might ameliorate minority chances for upward social mobility. He argued that the rate of intergroup and intragroup interactions is partially a function of group size. Specifically, smaller 16 groups (minorities) have higher rates of intergroup inter- actions than larger groups (majorities). However, if the size of a minority group increases, its rate of intragroup interactions increases faster than its rate of intergroup interactions, ceteris paribus, since interaction is more probable among persons having proximate social positions. The growth of intragroup interactions might then foster the development of minority-group identification, solidarity, and ethnic institutions. In summary, it appears reasonable that the ecological setting may condition upward social mobility among middleman minorities in two ways: through the contextual effects of relative group size and of juxtaposition to other minorities. For example, growth in the relative size of the minority group was probably necessary for producing a criti- cal mass to organize and support the rotating credit asso- ciations and trade guilds used by Chinese and Japanese Americans to fund their small businesses and to regulate internal competition (see Light 1972). Furthermore, the juxtaposition of Chinese and Japanese minorities should have been converted into status gains by the Chinese both in Hawaii and in California. To this point, Fuchs (1961, p. 100) noted that the Chinese in Hawaii owe part of their economic success before World War II to the fact that almost all anti-oriental hostility had been directed at the more numerous Japanese. Additional status increments at the expense of the Japanese were available to the Chinese in 17 California during World War II. That exile to evacuation camps required the sale of preperty in the span of only a few weeks placed Japanese merchants, businessmen, and farmers at a severe economic disadvantage (Thomas and Nishimoto 1951). Consequently, the growth of group size relative to the majority may not culminate in greater social mobility for a minority if juxtaposition to other minorities creates status disadvantages for that ethnic group. Minority:g£pup Size, Status Attainment, and Fertility Recent research suggests that ecological differences exist in the fertility patterns of both Chinese and Japanese Americans. Goldscheider and Uhlenberg (1969) discovered a trend toward lower fertility among Japanese living in areas of lower Japanese concentration. Although these Japanese tended to be younger, second-generation, and higher in social status, the finding that their fertility was lower rather than similar to that of native whites may reflect the greater difficulty in attaining economic mobility where ethnic institutions have less completely evolved. Park's (1972) study of 1960 data for the Honolulu SMSA reported a strong negative relationship between the proportion of Japanese residents and the marital fertility of census tracts. Ecological data for Chinese Americans are sketchier; however, Goldscheider and Uhlenberg (1969, p. 368) noted that, as for Japanese, the young urban Chinese 18 have fertility levels below those of native whites. The similarities in fertility patterns for Japanese and Chinese Americans support the view that minority status exerts a depressant effect upon the fertility of both groups, that the strength of that effect varies directly with impediments to upward mobility, and that the minority-status effect should be weakest where the relative group size is large. STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESES The theoretical arguments and empirical findings cited above suggest that variations in structural charac- teristics of minorities affect both their Opportunities for social mobility and their fertility. One such struc- tural variable is the size of the minority group relative to the majority in the areal unit of study. Another struc- tural determinant is the juxtaposition of several minority groups in a given ecological setting. Accordingly, Hawaii and California are two Western states in which Japanese Americans and Chinese Americans are confronted by significant concentrations of other racial and ethnic minorities. That Japanese and Chinese Americans together comprise a large minority in Hawaii and a small minority in California and that Japanese Americans comprise a larger minority relative to Chinese Americans in both those states should produce differences in status-attainment and fertility processes of Japanese and Chinese in the two states. The foregoing con- siderations suggest the following hypotheses and propositions: H1: The fertility of a middleman minority group will be lower than the fertility of the majority 19 20 population when social, economic, and demographic differences between the groups have been held constant. Proposition 1: The fertility of Japanese- and Chinese-American women will be lower than the fertility of native white women in Hawaii, ceteris paribus. Proposition 2: The fertility of Japanese- and Chinese-American women will be lower than the fertility of native white women in California, ceteris paribus. H : The smaller the relative size of a middleman minority group, the stronger the negative effect of minority-status membership upon fertility. Proposition 3: The fertility of Chinese-American women will be lower than the fertility of Japanese-American women in both Hawaii and California when social, economic, and demo- graphic differences between them have been held constant. Proposition 4: The fertility of Japanese- and Chinese-American women in California will be lower than the fertility of Japanese and Chinese-American women in Hawaii when social, economic, and demographic differences between them have been held constant. In order to examine these four prepositions, it is necessary first to hold constant the effects of social, demographic, and economic factors sensitively related to fertility. Previous research has shown that age at first marriage, socioeconomic status, female labor force partici- pation, and marital instability are inversely related to numbers of children ever born (Grabill gE_§l. 1958; Kiser ‘gg‘gl. 1968; Bogue 1969; Bumpass 1969; Cho 23.21. 1970; 21 Ryder and Westoff 1971; United Nations POpulation Division 1973; Rindfuss and Sweet 1977; Westoff and Ryder 1977). It is also known that age and extended familism are asso- ciated with higher fertility (Bogue 1969; Weller 1977). Urbanity, particularly the proximity to metropolitan centers, is inversely related to numbers of children ever born (Hathaway 35.31. 1969). The facts that Japanese and Chinese are much more urbanized and have higher rates of female employment, later ages at first marriage, and higher socio- economic statuses than native whites (Uhlenberg 1972; U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 1974; Rindfuss and Sweet 1977) would tend to depress Japanese and Chinese fertility below white levels. On the other hand, the greater marital stability, older female median ages, and greater extended familism of Japanese and Chinese than native whites would minimize the degree to which white exceeds Japanese and Chinese fertility. Furthermore, Matsumoto 23.31. (1971, p. 22) found that foreign birth was related to the higher Japanese fertility level in Hawaii and California and the difference was even greater in Hawaii. Yet Keely (1974) found that foreign-born women have recently had lower ferti- lity than native-born women. Therefore, the migration factor associated with foreign birth might also distort the rela- tionship between minority status and fertility and it should be controlled, since the Japanese and the Chinese-American p0pu1ations have a higher percentage of foreign-born than 22 the U.S. general population (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 1974). Finally, intermarriage should be included as one of the compositional variables related to the Japanese and the Chinese fertility levels in Hawaii and California. Gordon (1964, 1978) argued that marital assimilation, or "amalga- mation," is an inevitable by-product of cultural and struc- tural assimilation. Unlike California, Hawaii has histori- cally had liberal attitudes towards interracial marriage. Due to the abnormal sex ratio, the Chinese in Hawaii have married Hawaiian or part-Hawaiian women (Adams 1937). Cheng (1953, p. 166) reported that the number of Chinese in Hawaii marrying Japanese and Caucasians increased after 1930 and by 1952 it became even greater than marriages involving part-Hawaiians. Although the sex ratio normalized after World War II, Chinese in Hawaii maintained an even higher rate of outmarriage (Glick 1970). In California, the rate of Chinese outmarriage is lower than in Hawaii, but there is a tendency for outmarriage to be higher among younger generations (U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare 1974, p. 51). Similarly, Tinker (1973) and Kikumura and Kitano (1973) reported the significant increase in the Japanese outmarriage rate both in Hawaii and California after the 19605. Tinker (1973) further found that Sansei, third-generation Japanese, have largely contributed to this change. The increase in outmarriage among Japanese and 23 Chinese populations may indicate their level of structural assimilation. Those who outmarry are most likely to be removed from the ethnic community and less likely to be integrated into the ethnic subculture. With regard to Japanese and Chinese fertility levels and intermarriage, previous research indicates that Japanese and Chinese women married to whites had lgwgg fertility than Japanese and Chinese women married within their own group; and Japanese and Chinese women married to a person of some other nonwhite race had higher fertility than Japanese and Chinese couples (Rindfuss and Sweet 1977, pp. 133-137). Conse- quently, it is necessary to control the effect of inter- marriage for conservative tests of the four propositions. METHODOLOGY The data for the current study was the 1/100 1970 Census public-use sample (five-percent questionnaire) for the states of Hawaii and California (see U.S. Bureau of the Census 1972a). The data are apprOpriate for the analyses for several reasons. First, given the many independent variables to be controlled, it is desirable to have a large number of Japanese and Chinese women in the study sample. The one percent public-use sample would provide such a number. Secondly, the five-percent questionnaire affords the most detailed information collected during the Census and provides measures for all independent and dependent variables specified in this investigation. To control the factors of nativity and marital instability, the analyses were restricted to native-born Japanese, Chinese and white women who were currently married and living with spouse. Furthermore, since persons of Spanish descent, although considered "white" by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, have a different sociodemographic composition from white non- Spanish persons, the present study excluded Spanish-origin husbands and wives. The final criterion for inclusion was that females were between fourteen and forty-four years 24 25 of age, since these are the years in which most pregnancies occur. The variables employed in the study were measured as follows. State of residence was coded (1) for Hawaii and (0) for California. Two dummy variables were employed to code wife's ethnicity (Kerlinger and Pedhazur 1973). The first was coded: (1) Japanese, (0) otherwise; the second: (1) Chinese, (0) otherwise. Age of wives and age at first marriage were scored in completed years. Employment status of wife was: (1) in labor force; (0) not in labor force. The existence of extended familism was shown by the presence of relatives other than wife or child of head and was coded: (1) presence of other relatives; (0) absence of other rela- tives. Central City residence was (0) in urban part of central city of an SMSA; (1) not in central city--inc1uding nonmetro area and rural part of an extended central city (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1972b). Wife's educational attainment was coded by the number of years of formal edu- cation: (00) never attended; (01) elementary school, one year; (02) elementary school, two years; . . .; (18) college, 6 years or more. Income was measured by the total income of household head, and was coded by an ordinal variable such as the one employed by Rindfuss and Sweet (1977): (1) loss or less than $1,000; (2) $1,000 - $1,999; (3) $2,000 - $2,999; (4) $3,000 - $3,999; (5) $4,000 - $4,999; (6) $5,000 - $7,499; (7) $7,500 - $9,999; (8) $10,000 — $14,999; (9) $15,000 or more. Occupation was shown by 26 household head's current occupation and was coded by an ordinal variable very similar to the measure of occupational prestige used by Glenn (1964): (1) professional, technical, and kindred workers; (2) managers, officials, and pro- prietors (except farm); (3) clerical, sales, and kindred; (4) craftsmen, foremen, and kindred; (5) operatives and kindred, and service workers (except private household); (6) private household workers and laborers (except farm); (7) farmers and farm managers; (8) farm laborers and farm foremen.1 Marital stability was measured by the number of times the wife had been married and was coded: (0) once; (1) more than once. Intermarriage was coded; (0) not inter- married; (1) intermarried. Finally, fertility was measured as the number of children ever born to the wife. Since for causal explanations of fertility, the assimilationist per5pective assigns priority to the several social, economic, and demographic factors, it was necessary to use a statistical method which would allow an assessment of the association between fertility and ethnic group membership after that part of the association accounted for by the compositional variables had been removed from the ethnicity factor. Consequently, a hierarchical multiple 1Persons who never worked, persons in the armed forces, persons not in labor force who did not report year last worked, persons not in labor force who last worked 1959 or earlier, or unemployed persons who last worked 1959 or earlier were excluded from the analyses (See U.S. Bureau of the Census 1972b). 27 regression with two levels of inclusion was used to test Propositions 1, 2, and 3 (see Kerlinger and Pedhazur 1973). For these tests, children ever born was regressed upon ten compositional variables as a first level of inclusion and two ethnicity factors as a second level of inclusion. In this manner, the social, economic, and demoqraphic effects were given ten "chances" to predict completely the variance in cumulative fertility before ethnicity was given a single "chance." A significant increment to explained variance in fertility that might be afforded by ethnicity after the variance explained by the compositional factors had been extracted from ethnicity would yield support for the minority-status perspective. Consequently, this method of statistical modelling provided conservative tests of the first three prOpositions. For Proposition4, it was also necessary to use two levels of inclusion. The first level was the same as for Propositions l, 2, and 3. The second level incorporated the increment in explained variance attributable to state of residence. By removal from the residence measure the variance in fertility due to the set of compositional factors with which residence was correlated, a fairly rigorous test was afforded for the idea that minority-status effects on fertility are a function of minority-group size relative to the total p0pulation. FINDINGS Table 1 and Table 2 provide the overall characteri- stics of Japanese, Chinese, and whites in Hawaii and California. According to these tables, the mean number of children ever born to the Japanese and the Chinese was lower than that for whites in California, whereas in Hawaii the mean number of children ever born to the Japanese and the Chinese was higher than that for whites. However, in order to examine the true relationship between minority status and fertility, it is necessary to consider the social, economic, and demographic characteristics of these ethnic groups. Table l and Table 2 show that Japanese and Chinese were more concentrated in SMSA central cities and had higher socioeconomic statuses, later ages at first marriage and higher rates of wife's employment than native whites. These characteristics may have depressed Japanese and Chinese fertility below white levels. On the contrary, Table l and Table 2 show that Japanese and Chinese had greater marital stability, older mean ages and greater extended familism than native whites. The older mean age and the greater extended familism were more pronounced among the Japanese and the Chinese in Hawaii. These characteristics may have 28 29 Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Sizes for Three Ethnic Groups in Hawaiia Japanese Chinese White Variables Standard Standard Standard Mean Dev. Mean Dev. Mean Dev. Fertility 2.438 1.381 2.846 2.134 2.370 1.842 Central city residence .536 .500 .487 .506 .625 .485 Extended familism .152 .360 .205 .409 .039 .193 Income 7.201 1.518 7.359 1.581 7.106 1.747 Occupation 3.223 1.481 2.949 1.654 2.971 1.844 Age 34.598 6.944 34.590 6.336 31.692 7.224 Education 12.679 2.236 13.795 2.308 13.212 2.360 Employment status .674 .470 .641 .486 .481 .501 Age at first marriage 22.482 3.736 22.051 3.762 20.976 3.431 Intermarriage .161 .368 .359 .486 .164 .371 Marital stability 0.049 0.217 0.051 0.224 0.130 0.337 N 224 39 208 3Data for this and subsequent tables were from the 1/100 1970 Census public-use sample (five-percent questionnaire). 30 Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Sizes for Three Ethnic Groups in California Japanese Chinese White Variables Standard Standard Standard Mean Dev. Mean Dev. Mean Dev. Fertility 2.000 1.615 2.012 1.462 2.147 1.640 Central city residence .557 .498 .321 .470 .703 .457 Extended familism .070 .256 .062 .242 .044 .205 Income 7.232 1.864 6.889 2.013 7.103 1.781 Occupation 2.838 1.901 2.630 1.669 3.236 1.657 Age 33.838 6.205 33.691 7.453 31.746 7.447 Education 13.287 2.380 13.272 2.868 12.655 2.119 Employment status .465 .500 .580 .497 .425 .494 Age at first marriage 23.362 4.001 22.691 3.555 19.976 3.374 Intermarriage .173 .319 .136 .345 .010 .100 Marital stability 0.038 0.191 0.062 0.242 0.170 0.376 N 185 81 16,405 31 had an upgrading effect upon Japanese and Chinese fertility. Therefore, it seemed plausible that these socioeconomic and demographic characteristics differentiating the Japanese and the Chinese from the native whites might fully account for the differences in the fertility levels among these three groups in Hawaii and California. The assimilationist position regarding explanations of fertility assigns causal priority to social, economic, and demographic factors rather than to ethnicity. Yet the minority-status position supports the idea that ethnicity should have a significant net effect on fertility even after social, economic, and demographic factors have been held constant. For the tests of Propositions 1 and 2, children ever born was regressed hierarchically first upon the ten compositional variables and then upon the ethnicity vari- ables for both Hawaii and California (Table 3 and Table 4).2 The combined effects of all twelve variables accounted for 37.3 percent of the explained variance in fertility for Hawaii (p < 0.001) and 31.4 percent of the explained vari- ance for California (p < 0.001). Of the ten compositional variables, both in Hawaii and California, age had the strongest relationship with the dependent variable (Hawaii: Beta = 0.534; California: Beta = 0.481). Both Table 3 and 2The correlation matrices for Hawaii and California are displayed in Appendix A and B. Since none of the corre- lation coefficients exceeded 0.440, the problem of multi- collinearity did not exist. Table 3. .32 Hierarchical Regression of Children Ever Born upon Compositional Variables and Ethnicity, Hawaiia Independent Simple 2 d e ' R Variables r b Beta FSR FHR Age 0.438 0.192 0.125 0.534 147.032b Age at first b marriage -.l96 .304 -.l64 -.362 73.091 Employment b status -.160 .336 -.S79 -.171 19.704 Central city c residence .191 .350 .440 .131 11.549 Marital stability -.021 .355 -.678 -.113 8.739c Extended familism .066 .368 .293 .054 2.002 Income .187 .370 .044 .043 1.100 Occupation .051 .370 .025 .024 .337 Education -.206 .370 .012 .017 .144 Intermarriage -.054 .370 -.025 -.006 .023 F1_10 = 27.057b Chinese wife .073 .373 .330 .055 1.845 F11 = 1.980 Japanese wife -0.002 0.373 0.012 0.004 0.008 F12 = 0.008 an . 471; Intercept - 1.406. The overall F ratio calculated by p is 22.712, which is significant at p < 0.001 at 12 and 458 degrees of freedom. HR bp < 0.001 cp < 0.05 d 2 . FSR . r (1.12 k) / 1 This is the standard regresSion F ratio. It tests y 2 "°" the significance of the increment in R2 due to the (l-R .12 i k) / (N-k-l) addition of variable 1 after all other independent y "' "' variables have been included in the equation. eFHR = (R: - RR) / (kF - kR) This is the hierarchical regression P ratio. It 2 tests the significance of the increment in R due (1 - RP) / (N - kF - 1) to the addition of variables to the restricted model to obtain the full model. Tabl 133 e 4. Hierarchical Regression of Children Ever Born upon Compositional Variables and Ethnicity, California‘ Independent Simple 2 F F Variables r R b Beta SR HR Age 0.438 0.192 0.106 0.481 4,510.969b Age at first b marriage -.196 .276 -.130 -.271 1,355.610 Employment b status -.l75 .306 -.529 -.160 592.015 Education -.196 .309 -.045 -.059 62.463b Income .195 .311 .051 .055 60.167b Marital stability .101 .312 -.149 -.034 25.535b Central city b residence .064 .313 .096 .027 17.265 Intermarriage -.006 .313 .337 .023 12.267b Occupation .032 .314 .026 .026 13.459b Extended familism .050 .314 .110 .014 4.579c P1_10 = 762.148b Chinese wife -.006 .314 .126 .005 .680 F11 - .654 Japanese wife -0.009 0.314 0.062 0.004 0.371 F12 - 0.371 an . 16,671; Intercept - 1.689. The overall F ratio calculated by F is 635.172, which is significant at p < 0.001 at 12 and 16,658 degrees of freedom. bp < 0.001 °p < 0.05 34 Table 4 indicate that those who were younger, who married later, who were in the labor force, who married only once, who lived in a central city and whose household heads had higher occupational prestige had fewer children. On the other hand, income (Hawaii: Beta = 0.043; California: Beta = 0.055) and extended familism (Hawaii: Beta = 0.054; Cali- fornia: Beta = 0.014) were positively related to fertility. Education was negatively related to fertility in California (Beta = -0.059) but was not significantly related to ferti- lity in Hawaii (Beta = 0.017, p > 0.05). Furthermore, inter- marriage was related to higher fertility in California (Beta = 0.023), whereas it was not significantly related to fertility in Hawaii (Beta = -0.006, p > 0.05). These latter two findings may stem from the stronger relationships between education and age and between intermarriage and age in Hawaii (r = -0.l77 and -0.l72, respectively) than in California (r = -0.042 and -0.037, respectively). The com- bined effects of these ten compositional variables accounted for most of the explained variance in children ever born (Hawaii: F = 27.057, p < 0.001; California: F = 762.148, p < 0.001). After the differences among the Japanese, the Chinese and the whites in the compositional characteristics had been controlled, the ethnicity factors did not show a significant increment to explained variance in children ever born for either Hawaii or California. This finding indicates 35 that when social, economic, and demographic differences had been held constant, the fertility of Japanese and Chinese-American women was not significantly different from the fertility of native white women in both states. Thus, Propositions l and 2 were not supported. It was argued above that a growth in the size of an ethnic minority relative to other ethnic groups should foster the develOpment of educational, political, and religious, and economic infrastructures within the minority population. By facilitating the acquisition of material assets, these infrastructures should thereby promote social mobility within the ethnic minority. If minority status presents unique difficulties in status attainment and if minorities counter these barriers through deferral or limitation of childbearing, then minority-status effects on fertility should be weaker where the minority represents a larger share of the total population. This possibility was examined in two ways. Since the Chinese constituted a smaller proportion of the state population than did the Japanese in both Hawaii and Cali- fornia, it was hypothesized that the minority-status effects upon fertility would be stronger for the Chinese than for the Japanese. In other words, it was proposed that after the effects of ten social, demographic, and economic factors had been removed from fertility, the Chinese would have lower net fertility than the Japanese 36 would (Proposition 3). This proposition received no support in the Hawaii sample (Table 3) and the California sample (Table 4). The idea that a smaller share of the total popula- tion should strengthen minority-status implications for fertility was examined in a second way. Since the Japanese and the Chinese are minorities both in Hawaii and California and since both groups comprise a smaller prOportion of the population in the latter than in the former state, it was prOposed that the fertility of the Japanese and the Chinese in California would be lower than that of their coethnic group in Hawaii (Proposition 4). A conservative test of this prOposition required that children ever born be regressed upon ten social, demographic, and economic factors as a first level of inclusion. The introduction of state of residence as the second level of inclusion would permit a significance test of the net variance in fertility uniquely attributable to residence. Table 5 shows that whereas ten social, economic, and demoqraphic variables explained 37.3 percent of the variance in Japanese fertility, a net incre- ment to explained variance of 1 percent was obtained when state of residence was added to the regression model. This increment was statistically significant (F = 6.741, p < 0.05). When the hierarchical regression was repeated for the Chinese (Table 6), state of residence produced an even larger gain (3.1%) to explained variance in fertility Table 5. 37 Hierarchical Regression of Children Ever Born upon Compositional Variables and State: Japanese in Hawaii and Californiaa Independent Simple 2 P F Variables r R b Beta SR HR Age 0.391 0.153 0.117 0.515 126.667b Age at first b marriage -.264 .319 -.172 -.443 101.249 Employment b status -.151 .356 -.618 -.203 23.715 Extended familism .070 .362 .285 .060 2.235 Marital stability .021 .366 -.469 -.064 2.521 Occupation .015 .369 -.062 -.070 2.561 Education -.200 .371 -.019 -.030 .456 Income .202 .372 .036 .041 .865 Central city residence .110 .373 .088 .029 .524 Intermarriage -.089 .373 .018 .005 .012 F1_10 a 23.672b State of c residence 0.145 0.383 0.324 0.107 6.741 F11 = 6.741c aN = 409; Intercept - 2.459. bp < 0.001 Cp < 0.05 The overall F ratio calculated by FH is significant at p < 0.001 at 11 and 397 degrees of freedom. R is 22.443, which 138 Table 6. Hierarchical Regression of Children Ever Born upon Compositional Variables and State: Chinese in Hawaii and Californiaa Independent Simple 2 P P Variables r R b Beta SR HR Age 0.505 0.255 0.139 0.564 40.312b Age at first b marriage -.211 .343 -.175 -.363 21.883 Marital stability -.020 .379 -.967 -.130 2.587 Employment status -.219 .406 -.592 -.167 4.648c Education -.102 .421 .039 .061 .483 Extended familism -.134 .426 -.685 -.122 2.691 Income .246 .430 .034 .037 .174 Intermarriage -.036 .432 .052 .012 .022 Occupation -.049 .435 -.106 -.101 1.331 Central city b residence .092 .435 -.098 -.027 .130 F1_10 = 8.390 State of c c residence 0.225 0.466 0.723 0.195 6.265 P11 8 6.265 an - 120; Intercept - 1.301. bp < 0.001 Cp < 0.05 The overall P ratio calculated by F significant at p < 0.001 at 11 and 108 degrees of freedom. HR is 8.566, which is 39 net of the variance explained by the compositional factors (F = 6.265, p < 0.05). Since for both the Japanese and the Chinese, residents of California had lower net fertility than residents of Hawaii, Proposition 4 was confirmed. At this point, the results of the empirical analysis were mixed. It was found that in both Hawaii and California, cumulative fertility was not differentiated by membership in one of the three ethnic groups of interest after the effects of the compositional variables on numbers of births had been controlled. Consequently, these results supported the assimilationist perspective. 0n the other hand, for both Japanese and Chinese, fertility was lower where their prOportions of the state population were much smaller. A smaller share of a state population was thought to be associated with lack of economic infrastructures within the minority community; consequently, in such a population, upward mobility for the minority group was thought more difficult and was thought to result in deferrals or limita- tions of childbearing. The findings for PrOposition 4 thus appeared congruent with the minority-status perspective. To resolve this apparent contradiction, it was decided to compare the fertility of white wives living in California to that of white wives living in Hawaii. Since whites constituted a racial minority in Hawaii but a majority in California, the cumulative fertility should have been lower for the whites in the former state if our preposed 4O mechanism linking minority-status to fertility were valid. The results of the hierarchical regression of white ferti- lity on ten compositional variables (first inclusion level) and a dichotomous measure for state (second inclusion level) showed that while the compositional factors did account for most (31.3%) of the explained variance, state of residence explained 0.1 percent of the total variance, a small but statistically significant increment (Table 7). Although state of residence had a statistically sig- nificant effect, the magnitude of the regression coefficient (Beta = 0.025) called into question its substantive import. Moreover, the extreme division of the white sample by Hawaii and California residence (1 and 99 percent, respec- tively) might have operated to maximize differences in stan- dard deviations between the two groups so that significance for the state variable would be more easily attained. Con- sequently, it was decided to perform a new hierarchical regression upon the Hawaiian whites combined with a sub- sample of Californian whites randomly chosen with a proba- bility of 1 percent. For this new regression run (Table 8), the white Hawaiians numbered 208 and the white Californians, 213. It was found not only that state remained statistically significant but also that the magnitude of the standardized regression coefficient quintupled (Beta = 0.127, p < 0.01). This finding suggested that the negative effect of California residence on white fertility may have been understated in the Table 7 . 41 Hierarchical Regression of Children Ever Born upon Compositional Variables and State: whites in Hawaii and Californiaa Independent Simple 2 F F Variables r R b Beta SR HR Age 0.439 0.193 0.106 0.481 4,494.694b Age at first b marriage -.l94 .275 -.129 -.266 1,313.954 Employment status -.174 .305 -.526 -.158 582.705b Education -.197 .303 -.046 —.059 63.073b Income .195 .310 .051 .055 60.078b Marital stability .100 .311 -.152 -.035 26.435b Central city b residence .067 .312 .108 .030 21.555 Intermarriage .001 .312 .343 .023 12.191c Occupation .033 .313 .029 .029 16.658b Extended familism .054 .313 .125 .016 5.810d F1_10 = 757.409b State of b b residence 0.015 0.314 0.371 0.025 14.846 P11 = 14.846 an - 16613, Intercept - 1.653. bp < 0.001 cp < 0.01 dp < 0.05 The overall F ratio calculated by F is significant at p < 0.001 at 11 and 16601 degrees of freedom. HR is 690.478, which Table 8. 442 Hierarchical Regression of Children Ever Born upon Compositional Variables and State: Whites in Hawaii and California (Data Weighted)a Independent Simple 2 F F Variables r R b Beta SR HR Age 0.451 0.203 0.121 0.510 123.640b Age at first b marriage -.183 .285 -.143 -.281 37.341 Employment status -.183 .312 -.557 -.159 15.361b Central city c residence .154 .327 .431 .117 8.259 Marital stability .043 .333 -.363 -.074 3.245 Occupation .044 .336 .066 .066 2.182 Intermarriage -.019 .338 .954 .015 .136 Extended familism .094 .340 .395 .045 1.267 Income .204 .342 .047 .048 1.103 Education -.215 .343 -.027 -.035 .544 F1_10 = 21.361b State of c residence 0.064 0.357 0.442 0.127 9.132 F11 - 9.132 8N = 421: Intercept - 0.915. The overall F ratio calculated by FHR is 20.635, which is significant at p < 0.001 at 11 and 409 degrees of freedom. bp < 0.001 cp < 0.01 43 regression analysis for the larger sample. Therefore, since the white Californians had lower fertility than the white Hawaiians although whites were a racial majority in California and a racial minority in Hawaii, it appeared that some contextual effect common to white, Japanese, and Chinese wives in California might depress their fertility below coethnic levels in Hawaii. As such, this evidence was insufficient to support the minority-status perspective. CONCLUSION Two complementary perspectives upon the relationship between minority-group status and fertility were examined in the present study. The assimilationist perspective holds that minority status affects fertility only indirectly by determining one's social, economic, and demoqraphic characteristics. Thus, it argues that once the differences in the compositional factors among the Japanese, the Chinese, and the native whites have been statistically controlled, the ethnicity factor will retain no net rela- tionship to numbers of children ever born. In contrast, the minority-status perspective supports the idea that minority status presents unique difficulties in status attainment, which minorities tend to counteract through deferral or limitation of childbearing. Thus, the minority-status perspective posits that while differences in social, economic, and demographic characteristics par- tially account for minority-majority differences in ferti- lity, membership in minority or majority groups exerts an effect sui generis. Consequently, this latter perspective argues that the ethnicity factor will have a significant net effect on fertility even after the effects of the compositional factors have been held constant. 44 45 The findings indicated that social, economic, and demographic factors did account for a significant pr0portion of variance in children ever born. After the differences among the Japanese, the Chinese and the native whites in ten compositional characteristics had been controlled, no net minority-status effect upon the fertility of Japanese or Chinese Americans was found in either Hawaii or California. This evidence lent support to the assimilationist perspective. This outcome does not imply the disappearance of cultural and structural distinctiveness of the Japanese and the Chinese in Hawaii and California. For example, that late ages at childbirth characterize not only Japanese- American women but also women of pre-modern and modern Japan suggests the salience of traditional cultural values for the fertility of this U.S. ethnic community (Leonetti 1978). Moreover, the Japanese folk superstition that the Year of the Fiery Horse is unpropitious for the birth of daughters was perhaps partially responsible for the drop in Japanese-American fertility noted in Hawaii and California in 1966 (Kaku and Matsumoto 1975). The findings of the present study suggest, therefore, that cultural and struc— tural distinctiveness may have differentiated the cumulative fertility of Japanese, Chinese, and white native-born wives in Hawaii and California but that these effects were pro- bably transmitted through compositional variables such as 46 wife's age, age at first marriage, or labor force activity. Another aspect of the present analysis was to examine the interrelationship between minority-group size and ferti- lity. It was argued that the larger the size of a minority population relative to the majority, the greater should be the development of ethnic institutions which could promote self-determined social mobility. Consequently, it was hypo- thesized that minority-status effects upon fertility should be stronger where the middleman minority represents a smaller share of the total population. The latter hypothesis was tested in two ways. First, it was reasoned that the smaller share of the state popula- tion held by the Chinese than by the Japanese both in Hawaii and in California should be associated with more fully develOped economic infrastructures in the Japanese- American communities. By creating more job Opportunities at equitable pay scales for members of the Japanese commu- nity, these economic infrastructures might ease their attainment of upward mobility. As upward mobility was thereby thought to be more accessible to the Japanese than to the Chinese, it was proposed that the effect of minority- status upon fertility should be stronger for the latter group. Yet the hierarchical regressions indicated no dif- ferences between Japanese and Chinese fertility net of the effects of ten compositional factors. This finding was obtained both for Hawaii and for California. 47 The hypothesis interrelating minority-status, ferti- lity, and minority-group size was examined in a second way. Since both the Japanese and the Chinese represented a smaller share of the population of California than of Hawaii, it was thought that economic infrastructures would be less evolved in those ethnic communities in California. Less able to retreat to segregated jobs available in the ethnic communi- ties, the Japanese and the Chinese in California were thought to face more direct economic competition with whites. Since this competition was thought to be countered with deferral or limitation of childbearing by the Orientals, it was proposed that the fertility of-both Japaneseand Chinese should be lower in California than in Hawaii. This proposition was supported; nevertheless, the finding that whites had lower fertility in California, where they consti- tuted a majority, than in Hawaii, where they represented a minority, suggested that the relative size of a minority group was possibly not associated with fertility in the hypothesized manner. The findings suggested that differences in social milieu between California and Hawaii, in addition to differences in characteristics of individual respondents may have conditioned the fertility of currently married women. For example, the much higher divorce rate, the more permissive divorce law, and the greater prOportion of the pOpulation living in central cities of SMSA's in California 48 than in Hawaii may have created an environment of greater tolerance for alternative lifestyles in the former state. Since marital disruption and urban residence are associated with lower fertility, the fact of living in a state where marriages are frequently and easily broken and where urban dominance is strong might have created pressures for lower fertility in California regardless of one's own marital history or non-central-city/central-city residence, or minority-group/majority-group membership. If it is reasonable to hypothesize that these com- positional variables might exert an aggregate-level effect upon the childbearing of individuals, then it is logical to think that the minority composition of an areal unit might also affect the fertility of persons whether or not they are members of a minority subculture. For example, middleman minority groups may lack economic and political institutions in ecological settings where they are a minute preportion of the total pOpulation, and may be forced to compete more directly with the majority for economic and political power. The intensity of the competition may then make social mobility more difficult for everyone, such that the majority, as well as the middleman minority, must defer or limit child bearing to gain personal status advantages. This interpretation would then explain the finding that the fertility of whites, like that hypothesized for Japanese and Chinese, was lower in California than in Hawaii. 49 With two areal units of analysis, the present study cannot identify which of these contextual effects may have Operated upon fertility; future analysis must undertake this task. To augment the number of aggregate- level observations, the analyst could examine these rela- tionships using standard metrOpolitan statistical areas or counties as the unit of analysis, not only from California and Hawaii but also from other states where fairly large numbers of Chinese and Japanese reside. The specification of aggregate-level effects on fertility would aid family planning programs in identifying geographical units where the need for contraception and abortion services would likely be high. However, the present analysis indicates that separate programs for Japanese, Chinese, and white females are probably not necessary within California or Hawaii. APPENDICES APPENDIX A CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR HAWAII 50 x n a n m u o o o n a >uwawuuom oo~.ou cno.o: ~v~.o «No.0 vno.o ~o~.o «no.0 mmo.ou mmo.o wmo.o amo.ou moo.o saws onscazo «Na.ou vvo.: Nma. Ora. mn~.u and. who. buo. Ava. woo.: moo.l cud: unseeded noo.on hea.u moo. nmo.u moo. fiao. 090.1 wmo.1 nno. Hmo.: xuwawnduu Headset oco.on meo.u m~o.u ~h~.| mac. mmo.u nao.u omo. emo.l ooeauuefiuoucu ano.o new. 5mm. om~.n Hmo. o~a. ono.u oma.a ooeauuea amuse us use moo.o 550. «No. one.1 mod. vmo.: ooa.u usueun ucofi>onsfl sha.on nmm.u nmo. mmo.1 ho~.1 oo~.| cauueosum hno.on mow. oau. hmo. one. ou¢ nm~.o- oao. mod. amo. coauaasouo omo.o ovo.u hm”. aloocn ~No.on woo. Emaawfidu vuvcouxu Hma.o oucocwnou xuwu Heuucwu .wwclm: new mucowuwumwou sequeaouuou .H14 manna APPENDIX B CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR CALIFORNIA 51 x n e a o u o e o n o soaaauuon eoo.ou o~o.o- neo.o mmo.o -o.o omo.o oao.o m~o.ou ooo.o- ooo.o mmo.o- ooo.ou one: unocecu eno.o- and. cos. moo. Hmo. oNo. mao.- moo. nao. «mo.- ooo.u «we: caucuses ”so.o n-.- coo. ems.u ems. eoo. oao. omo. ago. so”. sueaanaun ”queue: o~o.o «Ho. ooo.u emo.- ”so. ooo.- moo. moo.- ooo.u oooeuueauoucn eao.o one. sea. oo~.- ono. oso.- moo.- oo~.u censuses unuau on one eoo.o Nao. NNo. ~v~.u «No. ~Ho.u me~.u noun». ucofihoHQau ~co.o- one.. «as. emo.u omo.- oo~.u coeuaooon eo~.o- -n. coo. mNo. one. «we mm~.o- -o. moo. mno. ceasedsooo nao.o eao. cos. «soocn noo.o- omo. saddened eoocouxu voo.o ooceownou sued aeuucoo .oecuoueano uou nucoaoeuuwou coeuuaunnoo .aun canoe LI ST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, Romanzo C. 1937 Interracial Marriage in Hawaii. New York: The Macmillan Company. Allport, Gordon W. 1954 The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley. Blalock, Hubert M., Jr. 1956 "Economic Discrimination and Negro Increase." American Sociological Review 21 (October): 584-588. 1957 "Per Cent Non-white and Discrimination in the South." American Sociological Review 22 (December): 677-682. 1967 Toward a Theory of Minority-group Relations. New York: Wiley. Blau, Peter M. 1977 Inequality and Heterogeneity. New York: The Free Press. Bogue, Donald 1969 Principles of Demography. New York: Wiley. Bonacich, Edna 1972 "A Theory of Ethnic Antagonism: the Split Labor Market." American Sociological Review 37 (October): 547-559. 1973 "A Theory of Middleman Minorities." American Sociological Review 38 (October): 583-594. 1978 A Personal Letter to the author, dated February 23. Brown, David L., and Glenn V. Fuguitt 1972 "Percent Nonwhite and Racial Disparity in Non- metropolitan Cities in the South." Social Science Quarterly 53 (December): 573-582. 52 53 Bumpass, Larry 1969 "Age at Marriage as a Variable in Socio-economic Differentials in Fertility." Demography 6 (February): 45-54. Cheng, Ch'eng-k'un 1953 "A Study of Chinese Assimilation in Hawaii," Social Forces 32 (December): 163-167. Cho, L. J., W. H. Grabill, and D. J. Bogue 1970 Differential Current Fertilityvig the Ugited States. Chicago: Community and Family Study Center. Fischer, Claude S. 1975 "Toward a Subcultural Theory of Urbanism." American Journal of Sociology 80 (May): 1319- 1341. Fuchs, Lawrence H. 1961 Hawaii Pono: A Social History. New York: Harcourt Brace Javanovich. Glenn, Norval D. 1963 "Occupational Benefits to Whites from the Sub- ordination of Negroes." American Sociological Review 28 (June): 443-448. 1964 "The Relative Size of the Negro Population and Negro Occupational Status." Social Forces 43 (October): 42-49. Glick, Clarence E. 1970 "Interracial Marriage and Admixture in Hawaii." Social Biology 17 (December): 278-291. Goldscheider, C., and P. R. Uhlenberg 1969 "Minority Group Status and Fertility." American Journal of Sociology 74 (January): 361-372. Gordon, Milton M. 1964 Assimilation in American Life. New York: Oxford University Press. 1978 Human Nature, Class, and Ethnicity. New York: Oxford University Press. Grabill, W. H., C. V. Kiser, and P. K. Whelpton 1958 The Fertility of American WOmen. New York: Wiley. 54 Hathaway, D. E., J. A. Beegle, and W. K. Bryant 1969 The People of Rural America. Washington, D.C.: Government Pfinting Office. Hsu, Francis L. H. 1971 The Challenge of the American Dream: the Chinese In the United States. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc. Ichihashi, Yamato 1932 Japanese in the United States. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Iwata, Masakazu 1962 "The Japanese Immigrants in California Agri- culture." Agricultural History 36 (January): 25-37. Kaku, Kanae, and Y. Scott Matsumoto 1975 "Influence of a Folk Superstition on Fertility of Japanese in California and Hawaii, 1966." American Journal of Public Health 65 (February): 170-174. Keely, Charles B. 1974 "Immigration Composition and Population Policy." Science 185 (August): 587-593. Kerlinger, Fred N. and Elazar J. Pedhazur 1973 Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc. Kikumura, Akemi, and Harry Kitano 1973 "Interracial Marriage: A Picture of the Japanese Americans." Journal of Social Issues 29 (2): 67-81. Kiser, C. V., W. H. Grabill, and A. A. Campbell 1968 Trends and Variations in Fertility in the U.S. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Kitano, Harry H. L. 1974 "Japanese Americans: A Middleman Minority?" Pacific Historical Review 43 (November): 500- 519. 1976 Japanese Americans: The Evolution of a Subculture. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hail, Inc. 55 Kung, S. W. 1962 Chinese in American Life: Some Aspects of Their History, Status, Problems, and Contributions. Seattle: UniverSity of Washington Press. Kurokawa, Minako, Ed. 1970 Minority Responses. New York: Random House. Lee, Anne, and Everett Lee 1952 "The Differential Fertility of the American Negro." American Sociological Review 17 (August): 437-447. 1959 "The Future Fertility of the American Negro." Social Forces 37 (March): 228-231. Lee, Rose Hum 1960 The Chinese in the United States of America. Hong Kong: Hong Kong UnIVersity Press. Leonetti, Donna Lockwood 1978 "The Biocultural Pattern of Japanese-American Fertility." Social Biology 25 (Spring): 38-51. Light, Ivan 1972 Ethnic Enterprise in America. Berkeley: UniverSity of California Press. 1977 "The Ethnic Vice Industry, 1880-1944." American Sociological Review 42 (June): 464-478. Lind, Andrew William 1938 An Island Community: Ecolpgical Succession in Hawaii. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Loewen, James W. 1971 The Mississippi Chinese: Between Black and White. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Lopez, David E. and Georges Sabagh 1978 "Untangling Structural and Normative Aspects of the Minority Status-Fertility Hypothesis." American Journal of Sociology 83 (May): 1491- 1497. Lyman, Stanford M. 1974 Chinese Americans. New York: Random House Inc. 1978 The Asian in North America. Santa Barbara, Calif.: American Bibliographical Center-Clio Press. 56 Marcum, John P. and Frank D. Bean 1976 "Minority Group Status as a Factor in the Relationship Between Mobility and Fertility: The Mexican American Case." Social Forces 55 (September): 135-148. Matsumoto, Y. Scott, Chai Bin Park, and Bella Z. Bell 1971 Fertility Differentials of Japgngse Women in Japan, Hawaii, and California. Papers of the East-West PopulatiOn Institute, No. 14. Honolulu. Nordyke, Eleanor C. 1977 The Peopling of Hawaii. Honolulu: The Univer- sity Press of Hawaii. Park, Chai Bin 1972 Multivariate Analysis of Areal Fertility in Honolulu. Papers of the East-West POpulation Institute, No. 21. Honolulu. Petersen, William 1971 Japanese Americans: Oppression and Success. New York: Random House. Rindfuss, Ronald R., and James A. Sweet 1977 Postwar Fertility Trends and Differentials in the United States. New York: Academic Press. Ritchey, P. Neal 1975 "The Effect of Minority Group Status on Ferti- lity: A Re-examination of Concept." Population Studies 29 (July): 249-257. Roberts, Robert E., and E. S. Lee 1974 "Minority Group Status and Fertility Revisited." American Journal of Sociology 80 (September): 503-523. Ryder, N. B., and C. F. Westoff 1971 Reproduction in the United Statesyil965. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Samuels, Frederick 1970 The Jgpanese and the Haoles of Honolulu. New Haven, Conn.: College and University Press. Schmid, Calvin F., and Charles E. Nobbe 1965 "Socio-economic Differentials among Nonwhite Races." American Sociological Review 30: 909- 922. 57 Sly, D. F. 1970 "Minority-group Status and Fertility: An Extension of Goldscheider and Uhlenberg." American Journal of Sociology 76 (November): 443-459. Sung, Betty Lee 1967 Mountain of Gold: Thg Story of the Chinese in America. New York: The Macmillan Company. Thomas, Dorothy Swaine, and Richard S. Nishimoto 1951 "Expulsion of a Minority Group." Pp. 184-198 in Arnold M. Rose (ed.), Race, Prejudice, and Discrimination. New York: Aifred A. Knopf. Thomlinson, Ralph 1965 Population Dynamics. New York: Random House. Tinker, John N. 1973 "Intermarriage and Ethnic Boundaries: The Japanese American Case." Journal of Social Issues 29 (2): 49-66. Turner, Ralph H. 1951 "The Relative Position of the Negro Male in the Labor Force of Large American Cities." Ameri- can Sociological Review 16 (August): 524-529. Uhlenberg, Peter 1972 "Demographic Correlates of Group Achievement: Contrasting Patterns of Mexican-Americans and Japanese-Americans." Demoqraphy 9 (February): 119-128. United Nations POpulation Division 1973 The Determinants and Consequences of Population Trends. Vol. I. New York: U. N. Publicatidn. U.S. Bureau of the Census 1972a Public Use Samples of Basic_§ecords from the 1970 Census. Washifigton, D.C.: Government Pfinting Office. 1972b Public Use Samples of Basic Rgcords From the 1970 Census: Description and_Technica1 Documen- tation. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. 1973a U.S. Cepsus of Population; 1970. Genepgl Po u- Iation Characteristics. Final Report PC(1)-B . §§1ifornia. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. 58 1973b U.S. Census of Populatiopi_1970. Genergl Popu- lation Characteristigg. Final Report PC(1)-Bl3. Hawaii. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. 1973c U.S. Census of Population: 1970. General Social and Economic Characteristics. Final Report PC(1)-C13. Hawaii. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. 1973d U.S. Census of Populatign: 1970. Subject Reports, Final Report PC(2)-1G. Japanese, Chinese, and Filipinos in the United States. Washington,‘DTC.: Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare 1974 A Study of Selected Socioeconomic Charagtggi— stics of Ethnic Minorities Based on the 1970 Census. Vol. II: Asian Americans. Arlington: Urban Associates, Inc. Weller, Robert H. 1977 "Wife's Employment and Cumulative Family Size in the United States, 1970 and 1960." Demo- graphy 14 (February): 43-65. Westoff, Charles F., and Norman 8. Ryder 1977 The Contraceptive Revolution. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Williams, Robin 1947 The Reduction of Intergroup Tensions: A Survey 9f Research on Problems of Ethnic, Racial and Rgligious Group Relations. New York: SSN Council. "‘fillfllllilllllliES