 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Rural California: The Conditions of Ethnic and Economic Patchwork Professor and Director, JSRI JSRI Visiting Research Scholar Roosevelt University December 1997
This paper was originally presented at the conference on "The Changing Face of Rural California" and the Western Regional Research Group meeting at the University of California, Davis, on Oct. 9, 1997.
About the Authors: Dr. Refugio I. Rochín, Director of the Julian Samora Research Institute, is Professor of Agricultural Economics and Sociology at Michigan State University and Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics and Chicano Studies at the University of California, Davis. His research interests include immigration/migration issues, farmworkers, and rural populations. He received his M.A. in Communication and his Ph.D. in Agricultural Economics from Michigan State University. He has directed JSRI since Fall 1994. Dr. Elaine M. Allensworth is a JSRI Research Associate at Michigan State University and a faculty member at Roosevelt University in Chicago. Her research interests include immigration, labor markets, ethnicity, and education. She received her M.A. in Sociology and Urban Affairs, as well as her Ph.D. in Sociology, from Michigan State University.
SUGGESTED CITATION Rochín, Refugio I. and Ellaine Allensworth, Latino Concentrations in Rural California: The Conditions of Ethnic and Economic Patchwork, JSRI Occasional Paper #30, The Julian Samora Research Institute, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1997.
Abstract For more than a decade, communities in California have become increasingly Latino, or "mejicano." At the same time, the economic well-being of California's agricultural communities has become increasingly defined by the race and ethnicity of residents. Communities with higher concentrations of Latinos, for example, tend to have greater poverty, lower median incomes, and smaller proportions of residents with high school or college degrees. Most studies have focused on immigration from Mexico and other parts of Latin America as the cause of these conditions. However, these studies have neglected the concurrent changes that are occurring with the non-Latino White population. In this report we examine the processes affecting the rates of concentration or "Latinization" of rural communities. These processes include the changing demographics of both Latinos and non-Latino Whites, between and within communities. We also examine the extent to which Latino concentration and White exodus correlate with declining socio-economic conditions. Our analysis is based on data we collected on over 280 California communities. Our database covers the demographic and economic changes that have occurred in each community between 1980 and 1990. We also apply regression analysis to determine how changes in ethnic composition affect socio-economic conditions. In addition, we incorporate more recent information from our qualitative study of four communities in Fresno Tulare Counties. This information comes from focus groups and interviews with local leaders (public and private) in our selected communities. Limited time precluded us from surveying more places. But from Fresno County alone, we derive a "qualitative sense" of why people move and what people consider to be the changing socio-economic conditions of their respective communities. In addition, several of our interviews resulted in ideas and suggestions for the development of "Mexican Towns." Altogether, we combine information from both the quantitative "macro" perspective with the qualitative "micro" perspectives, to understand the determinants of Latino concentration, White exodus, and the notions people have about community conditions. While news reports and studies suggest that labor intensive agricultural production and Mexican immigration are the chief causes of Latino concentration and deprivation in rural California, we find, however, that changes in the non-Latino population account for more of the "Latinization" of rural communities than the settlement of Latinos who are foreign born. We also find that the settlement of Latinos depends more on the cost and availability of housing and year-round job availability than strictly seasonal agricultural employment. Our qualitative information suggests that ethnic differences (including perceptions of conflict) and community deterioration, better explain the decisions of non-Latino Whites to move from "Mexican Towns." Whites often move nearby and continue to hold jobs in "Mexican Towns." But their property taxes and former purchases also leave with them when they move from the "Mexican Towns." Our study suggests a continuing growth in the number of "Mexican Towns," with increasing concentrations of "mejicanos" or foreign born. Concomitantly, our study suggests more concentration of non-Hispanics in distinguishable White "Anglo" communities in rural California. Interestingly, to a noticeable degree, second generation "mejicanos," or "Chicanos," are also moving out of communities with high concentrations of Latinos, many to "Anglo Towns." However, Chicanos are less likely to move out of "Mexican Towns" to the same degree as non-Hispanic Whites. As a result of these different types of socio-economic conditions and personal feelings, places in rural California are becoming increasingly demarcated by the race and ethnicity of residents. Rural California is becoming a mosaic of extreme ethnic and economic patchwork. Such conditions will make it increasingly difficult for state and federal support to community and economic development. Nonetheless, we end our paper with some suggestions for developing "Mexican Towns." We hope the reader of this report will first take the time to understand the paper, before looking at the end for "solutions." October 1997 Table Of Contents
In the decade of the sixties, communities in rural California were largely populated by non-Hispanic White residents. But beginning in 1970, and accelerating during the 1980's and 1990's, the White/Latino proportions began to change. While Latinos have lived as numerical minorities within "barrios" of rural California communities for many decades, they are now becoming the numerical majorities in many places (Rochín and Lopez 1995). At the same time, comparison of economic indicators for rural communities by their ethnic composition reveals disturbing conditions in places with higher proportions of Latino residents. In both 1980 and 1990 places with higher percentages of Latino residents were significantly more disadvantaged in terms of educational attainment, unemployment, self-employment, income, and poverty than were places with smaller percentages of Latino residents (Allensworth and Rochín 1995; Rochín and Lopez 1995). Furthermore, the correlations between ethnicity and the community economic indicators were stronger in 1990 than in 1980 (Rochín and Lopez 1995), suggesting that ethnic and economic inequality is growing. Therefore, we ask why these ethnic transformations are occurring so that this process of increasing community inequality can be addressed. Most studies have assumed that the changing ethnicity of rural places has been attributed to the increasing immigration from Mexico (e.g., Palerm 1991; Rochín and Lopez 1995; SCR 43 Task Force 1989; Taylor 1995). However, changes in the ethnic composition of rural communities could also be attributed to loss of non-Latino population. Obviously, Latino concentration would increase over the decade with decline in non-Latino population, even if there was no growth in Latinos. Therefore we ask: 1) What concurrent changes occurred in non-Latino and Latino population between 1980 and 1990? 2) Can the relative changes in ethnic composition be attributed to both growing Latino population and declining non-Latino White population? 3) What are the factors underlying patterns of growth and loss in Latino and non-Latino White population? Theoretical Explanations For Ethnic Transformation 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). Dependency/World Systems theory explains immigration as a result of the economic dependence of workers in poorer "periphery" countries (e.g., Mexico) on capital held in the core (i.e., the United States). Economic-rational perspectives focus on the role of utility maximization within the marketplace. While economic-rational theories ignore social and political divisions between people, they inform our understanding of the processes that encourage different migration patterns among groups of people with unequal access to resources. Therefore, in this article, hypotheses are developed based on neoclassical economical principles and theories, but interpreted within the context of a Dependency Theory framework. In this way principles of economic action are seen as embedded within core-periphery differences. Hypotheses are posed based on research which has shown that migration and population growth are influenced by economic restructuring (labor market opportunities), cost of living differences, social capital, size of place, and demographic changes. Agricultural and Industrial Restructuring From a Dependency/World Systems theory perspective, 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). 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. The relationship between immigration and the demand for agricultural labor can be seen 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 (Rochín 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). Therefore, from this perspective, growing demand for low-wage agricultural labor in California, in conjunction with the decline of economic opportunities in Mexico, have led to increasing Latino immigration to rural California. The perspective that employment opportunities lead to migration is consistent with neoclassical economic models. Such models, predicting fluctuations in migration patterns among different nationality groups with job and wage differentials, have received considerable support (Massey, et al. 1994). H1: Agricultural restructuring and the growth of agricultural employment brought Latino immigration. This, in turn, led to increasing Latino concentration. At the same time, 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). H2: The growth of labor-intensive agricultural employment led to declining non-Latino White population. This, in turn, brought increasing Latino concentration. The emphasis on agricultural restructuring, however, obscures the existence of other forms of economic production in rural California. Agricultural employment is very important in California's rural communities, although it is not the sole employer. The increasing informalization of work, both in agriculture and industry, might encourage the emigration of residents with medium levels of education, more work experience, and better opportunities in other areas. Metropolitan areas experiencing high immigration have shown increased emigration of Whites with low levels of education, perhaps because of declining wages due to competition for low-wage jobs and inexpensive housing (Frey 1995). Places that are located within regions in which wages declined from 1980 to 1990 might have experienced outmigration of native workers, especially non-Latino Whites. This would, in turn, lead to growth in Latino concentration. From the opposite perspective, communities located within regions experiencing growth in jobs and wages should have experienced growth in both non-Latino and Latino population, thereby experiencing smaller growth in Latino concentration. H3: In regions where wages declined, communities experienced loss of non-Latino population. This led to growth in Latino concentration. In regions where jobs and wages grew, communities experienced growth in both Latino and non-Latino population, leading to smaller growth in Latino concentration. Economic "pull" factors other than jobs and employment, such as cost of living differences, should also have affected 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). 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). H4: Places that experienced larger gains in housing availability and affordability, and those that had more affordable and vacant units in 1980, experienced more Latino population growth. This brought larger gains in the percentage of their population that is Latino. Economic advantage is not always based on tangible forms of capital. Capital can be embedded in an intangible form within social relations. 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). 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 established 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. H5: Places with larger communities of Latinos in 1980 experienced more growth in Latino population. This, in turn, led to greater Latino concentration in those places. 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 community, 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. Furthermore, 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. H6: Ethnic conflict in places with larger concentrations of Latinos led to emigration of non-Latinos. This, in turn, led to greater Latino concentration. Wealthier community members, mostly non-Latino Whites, might also have emigrated from smaller and poorer communities because of perceived changes in the quality of life. With improvements in transportation and communication, many smaller places in rural areas are experiencing declining numbers of businesses and services, as people 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. While the quality of life cannot be measured quantitatively, such a hypothesis is explored qualitatively, while the influence of community size is explored in the quantitative models. H7: Declining quality of life in smaller places led to emigration of non-Latinos. This, in turn, led to greater Latino concentration. Finally, it is possible that growth in Latino population, as well as loss of non-Latino population, are due to changing age structure. On average, Latino families have more children than non-Latino families (Allensworth and Rochín 1995). The amnesty provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986 have encouraged family reunification, further increasing family size (Massey and Espinosa 1995). H8: Increasing percentages of children among Latinos, and decreasing percentages of children among non-Latinos led to growth in Latino population and loss of non-Latino population. This, in turn, led to greater Latino concentration. U.S.-Born and Foreign-Born Latinos The above hypotheses do not distinguish between foreign-born and U.S.-born Latinos, focusing primarily on the former group. U.S.-born 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. Census data on places do not allow for differentiation of Latinos into foreign-born and U.S.-born categories. However, these differences are explored in qualitative data analysis. We take a multi-method approach for this study, combining qualitative observational and interview data with quantitative time-series data from secondary sources. The quantitative analysis allows for hypothesis testing among all communities of interest. The qualitative analysis compliments the quantitative tests by examining the context of ethnic transformation, and by allowing non-hypothesized explanations to emerge. Quantitative data on all variables except those on employment are taken from the 1980 and 1990 U.S. 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 (U.S. 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 288 communities. Because the entire population of communities that adhere to our definition are included for analysis, statistical significance levels are not necessary. However, they are included to help the reader determine which variables are of most importance in explaining the outcome measures. Employment is measured at a regional level since people often commute to work outside of their home community. 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 U.S. Census of Agriculture for 1982 and 1987.1 Employment is measured by survey of firms and farms rather than people. Counties are used as proxies for labor market areas because of the restrictions imposed by the design of the data sets. Variables Community ethnicity (Latino population concentration) is measured as the percentage of the population that reports themselves as Hispanic. The growth in Latino concentration from 1980 to 1990 is measured as the increase in the percentage of the population that categorizes themselves as Hispanic.2 Latino and non-Latino population growth are each measured as the percentage growth in population from 1980 to 1990.3 Because some communities lost Latino or non-Latino population over this decade, these communities have negative values for the population growth variables. The terms "non-Latino" and "Latino" are used rather than "Anglo" and "Mexican-origin" so that the label corresponds to the definition used to create the population variables. However, over 95% of the non-Latino population defines itself as "White, non-Hispanic," and over 80% of the Latino population defines itself as Mexican-origin. Over 95% of the people in this sample classify themselves as either Latino or non-Latino White. Regional employment variables include overall growth in employment, growth in wages, mean wages in 1980, and growth in farm employment. Employment growth is measured as the percentage growth in the total number of employees in the county from 1980 to 1989. 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 farm employment is measured as the percentage growth in the total annual wages paid to agricultural labor. Measures of agricultural restructuring 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. 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.4 The first agricultural restructuring variable was negatively skewed, and was transformed through a square function to normalize its distribution. Housing growth 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 to normalize its distribution. Housing affordability 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 affordability 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). Qualitative Data on Rural Communities in the San Joaquin Valley During October 1995 we surveyed eight communities located between Bakersfield and Fresno. In March and April 1996 we intensively studied four of those places, as well as communities that were economically and socially tied to those places. 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. Interviews were completed with community leaders, 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, 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. We employed interviews, focus groups, ethnographic surveillance and on site visitations to address the following questions: 1) How important are jobs, the community economic base, ethnic conflict, social capital, and discrimination in determining migration patterns? 2) Are local residents forming new forms of positive "social capital", i.e. building social networks of friends and associations which support economic development? 3) How important are the peoples' perceptions of immigrants and the changing ethnic composition 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 economic conditions? Data was analyzed through the Grounded Theory approach (Strauss and Corbin 1990). Through this method, theory is discovered by coding the data, discovering major themes and categories, re-conceptualizing 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. What demographic changes occurred in non-Latino and Latino population from 1980-90? While almost all agricultural communities in California became increasingly Latino from 1980 to 1990, the growth of non-Latino population varied considerably from place to place. This dynamic is shown graphically in Figure 1, which displays a box and a diamond for each of the 288 communities. 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 population growth of each community from 1980 to 1990. The boxes show the growth in total population. The diamonds show the growth of non-Latino population. Gaps between the growth in total population and the growth in the non-Latino population indicate the amount of population growth due to changes in Latino population. To understand Figure 1, notice the communities at the far left with negative growth in total population. In some cases the diamond and the box are at the same place, showing that the loss in total population was due to the loss of non-Latinos. However, in some instances the diamond is below the box. In these communities, the loss-of non-Latinos was greater than the loss in overall population. Growth in Latino population in these places helped reduce the population decline. Most communities gained population from 1980-1990. The amount of this growth that can be attributed to non-Latino Whites varies considerably. In many of the communities there was no growth in non-Latino population, despite an increase in total population. Nonetheless, non-Latino Whites added significantly to the growth of many communities. To what extent can the relative changes in ethnic composition be attributed to both growing Latino population and declining non-Latino population? Places could be more Latino because they started out with larger concentrations of Latino residents, because they gained Latino population, or because they lost non-Latino population. Table 1 displays a regression model predicting 1990 Latino concentration with variables representing each of these three factors.5  The first row displays the coefficients associated with 1980 ethnic composition. Places that did not gain Latino or non-Latino population have the same percentage of Latino residents in 1990 as in 1980, as is indicated by the coefficient of approximately one. The second row predicts 1990 ethnic composition with growth in Latino population. Controlling 1980 ethnic composition and growth in non-Latino population, each percentage growth in Latino population, on average, brought a .02% growth in Latino concentration. Therefore, on average, communities that experienced 100% growth in Latino population from 1980 to 1990 were 2% higher in Latino concentration in 1990 than they were in 1980, controlling for non-Latino population growth.6 At the same time, controlling 1980 ethnic composition and growth in Latino population, each percentage growth in non-Latino population was associated with an average decline of .06% in Latino concentration. Therefore, on average, communities that experienced 100% growth in non-Latino population from 1980 to 1990 were 6% lower in Latino concentration in 1990 than they were in 1980, controlling for Latino population growth.7  The unstandardized regression coefficients (Bs) show that non-Latino population growth and loss had a larger effect on population composition than did Latino population growth. In other words, Latino population growth had to be three times higher than non-Latino population growth to have an equal impact on ethnic composition. This occurs because non-Latinos comprise a larger percentage of the population. However, if Latino population growth varied to a much larger extent between 1980 and 1990 than did non-Latino population growth, its overall effect on ethnic composition could have been greater than non-Latino population growth. The beta coefficients allow for comparison of the relative effects of Latino and non-Latino population over the decade. Such a comparison shows that Latino population growth had approximately the same influence on changing ethnic composition as did non-Latino population growth (beta = .128 and -.105, respectively). If Latino population growth was of primary importance for explaining ethnic transformation (e.g., if communities experienced about the same degree of non-Latino population growth while experiencing varied Latino population growth), its beta coefficient would have been much larger than that of non-Latino population growth. Together, non-Latino population loss and Latino population growth both explain which communities have experienced relatively larger or smaller growth in the percentage of their residents that are Latino, compared to other communities. Greater percentages of Latino residents are found in communities that have experienced the most non-Latino White emigration, and the least growth in non-Latino White population, compared to other rural communities. This finding runs counter to studies that have suggested that Mexicanization, especially immigration from Mexico and Latin America, is the chief cause of demographic change and Latino concentration in rural California.  What are the factors underlying patterns of growth and loss in Latino and non-Latino White population? Both Latino and non-Latino population growth contributed to community ethnic transformation from 1980 to 1990. Therefore, the question arises as to why communities experienced varying degrees of such population growth. Table 2 shows the results of regression equations predicting the growth of each type of population. For each dependent variable, a 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. In each case the variance explained by the reduced models is equivalent to that explained by the complete models. Hypothesis 1 predicted that agricultural restructuring and the growth of agricultural employment brought Latino immigration. Agricultural restructuring and growth in agricultural labor were represented by three variables, each measured at the regional level: 1) growth of large-scale agriculture; 2) intensification of agriculture; and 3) growth in total wages paid to hired labor. Only the second was found to be significant for predicting Latino population growth. Places that were located in regions experiencing a shift to high-profit, labor-intensive agriculture showed significant Latino population growth. Shifts to industrial-type farming and growth in the payroll for hired labor were not associated with Latino population growth. Therefore, it was not the amount of agricultural employment, but the type of employment, that affected Latino settlement. Hypothesis 2 predicted that the growth of labor-intensive agricultural employment brought losses in non-Latino population. This was not found to be the case. None of the three agricultural variables significantly predicted non-Latino population growth. Hypothesis 3 suggested that job and wage growth explained both Latino and non-Latino population growth. This was explored through regional-level variables representing wage growth, job growth, and 1980 wage levels. None of these proved to be significant predictors of either Latino or non-Latino population growth. Hypothesis 4 suggested that housing availability and affordability explained Latino and non-Latino population growth. Among both ethnic groups, housing variables proved to be very important. Population grew to the largest extent in places that had lower housing costs, more vacant units, and more housing growth. 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. Hypothesis 5 predicted that places with larger concentrations of Latinos in 1980 experienced more Latino population growth, while Hypothesis 6 predicted that places with larger concentration of Latinos in 1980 experienced less non-Latino population growth. Hypothesis 5 was not supported. To the contrary, the rate of Latino population growth was largest in places with smaller Latino concentration in 1980. This does not mean that places with larger concentrations of Latinos in 1980 experienced less growth in absolute numbers of Latinos. Rather, the percentage 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 that were ethnically less Latino (more Anglo) in 1980 than in places that were ethnically more Latino. The same was true of non-Latino population growth, consistent with Hypothesis 6. 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. Hypothesis 7 predicted that smaller places experienced less growth in non-Latino population. This was not found to be the case. Neither population nor geographic size in 1980 predicted growth in either non-Latino or Latino population. Hypothesis 8 predicted that ethnic transformation could be explained through differential birth rates among Latinos and non-Latinos. However, neither Latino nor non-Latino population growth could be explained by changing age structure. Qualitative data analysis compliments the quantitative tests by contextualizing the process of ethnic transformation. Therefore, the quantitative findings are discussed within the findings of the qualitative analysis. Qualitative interviews and observations showed that Anglo residents are moving almost exclusively to communities that contain a substantial proportion of Anglos, or to more remote housing outside of specific cities, while moving out of communities considered Mexican towns.8 Latino residents are also moving to Anglo and ranch areas, but they are not uniformly moving out of communities with large populations of Latinos. Jobs and Wages It was hypothesized that the movement of non-Latino Whites from Latino communities could be due to a lack of jobs. In fact, people in the communities under study most frequently attributed the loss of non-Latino population to a lack of economic opportunities. Many respondents cited the lack of 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, while lack of economic opportunity was frequently mentioned as a cause of outmigration, its relative importance appears weak. People in all of the communities, even those that gained non-Latino population, complained about the lack of high-skill jobs in town. Furthermore, there were jobs for college graduates in all of the places under study. The ethnicity of the community determined whether those high-skill workers actually lived there. Most of the teachers, hospital/clinic workers, police/emergency workers, bank managers, and city employees in the Latino communities did not live within the towns in which they worked. Instead, they commuted from large cities such as Fresno or Visalia that were 30 minutes to two hours away, Anglo communities close to their city of employment, or from a country ranch. In Anglo communities most of the high-skill employees lived within the community. In fact, Anglo communities also contained many residents who held high-skill jobs in large cities 30 minutes to two hours away, but who commuted from the smaller town because they preferred to live in the country. Interviews also suggested that regional job and wage growth could lead to population loss among both Latinos and Anglos. While regional job and wage growth might attract some people to the area, higher earnings allow current residents to move out of places that they feel are less desirable. Therefore, Anglo towns serve as bedroom communities for commuting city workers, while 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 types of people who live there, regardless of where their residents work. These results are consistent with quantitative analyses which showed no relationship between job and wage growth and non-Latino or Latino settlement. Anglo-Immigrant Relationships Instead, one of the most important reasons for White emigration from Latino communities is the influx of immigrants from Mexico and Latino America. Part of this relationship can be simply attributed to prejudice. As one Anglo man in Orange Cove 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. 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, while those who are looking for a community in which to settle do not choose farmworker communities. However, the relationship between immigration and White emigration is not solely attributable to prejudice, but, perhaps more importantly, to perceived changes in the quality of community life. Such feelings encourage emigration of both Anglos and middle-class Latinos. Many established residents believe that immigrants from Mexico and Central America negatively affect community life because their presence brings about overcrowded housing, overcrowded schools, more drunk driving, greater numbers of police and emergency calls, and burdens on the welfare and MediCal systems. The community changes associated with immigrants are based in observable changes, although their degree of influence on community life depends on subjective interpretation. Overcrowded housing results from the lack of economic resources among immigrants, and the necessity to "double up" so that housing is affordable. 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. In the schools, teachers, administrators, and parents discuss the difficulties in keeping up with increasing populations of students. And, in fact, many of the Anglo families who live in Latino communities do not send their children to the local schools, but to private schools in neighboring Anglo communities. Finally, problems with drunk driving, fights, and medical emergencies are attributed by many community members to excessive alcohol and drug use among male farmworkers. They note the encouragement of male farmworkers to drink and take drugs 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. As a result of all of these factors, people complain that their towns look "dirty" and feel dangerous. Therefore, many of those 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 the Latino communities. Hypothesis 6 predicted that ethnic conflict in places with larger concentrations of Latinos led to emigration of non-Latinos. As indicated above, quantitative tests were consistent with this hypothesis, in that non-Latino population growth was greatest in places that were less Latino, while non-Latino population loss was greatest in places that were more Latino. Qualitative interviews also confirm this hypothesis. Our interviews picked up strong attitudes towards Mexican Towns. However, it is not negative feelings towards Latinos, but towards immigrants, that are most important for explaining non-Latino emigration, and decisions not to settle in places with large immigrant populations. Housing 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 and Latino 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 5% per year. The importance of housing in affecting population growth was apparent in every community visited as part of this study. In summary, it should be noted that non-Latino White outmigration is part of a cycle, encouraging further exodus through further ethnic concentration and loss of community income. Not only does immigration encourage the loss of non-Latino population, but the loss of non-Latino population encourages immigration. Outmigration of non-Latino population brings the availability of housing that can be divided up and used to house greater numbers of individuals and families. Non-Hispanic White exodus also encourages further middle-class emigration through a lowering of community SES, and, therefore, perceptions of greater deterioration in community well-being. For many of the same reasons that Anglos are leaving Mexican Towns (e.g., higher-quality housing, less poverty, less crowded schools, unease with recent immigrants), middle-class, U.S.-born Mexican-Americans are also moving to wealthier, 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. 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. 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.-born Latinos are not moving out of Mexican towns to the same extent as Anglos, and some U.S.-born Latinos are choosing to move into Latino communities, while Anglos are not. U.S.-born Latino-Immigrant Relationships First, 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 economic burdens of immigrants, and empathy towards immigrants due to their own roots in the farmworker community. 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 more-Mexican communities. Housing Second, many Latinos face structural impediments to migration. Most of the housing in Anglo communities is substantially more costly than that in Latino communities. Not only are housing units of the same size more expensive in Anglo communities, but the type of housing that is available is of a higher price range. Because Latino families own less wealth, in general, than Anglo families, it is more difficult for them to move to areas with higher-priced housing. Cultural Differences There are also cultural differences between Anglo and Mexican families that have been suggested to impact migration decisions. Many respondents noted that Latino children were more likely to stay in their community as they came to be adults than were Anglo children. Latino respondents attributed this phenomenon to closer family ties and greater responsibility towards family among Latinos. Adult Latinos, they suggested, maintain closer ties with their parents and siblings than do Anglos and so are less likely to leave the community. 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, felt uncomfortable in Anglo communities and environments because of cultural and economic differences, and so were less likely to leave home, and more likely to return. Regardless of the motivation of Latino young adults, the fact that they are somewhat more likely to remain in Latino communities encourages their parents to stay also, so that there is a reinforcing effect maintaining 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 than are middle-class Latinos. Finally, some middle-class Latinos have decided to stay within their communities, despite economic opportunities elsewhere because of their concern for their communities, and 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 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. Working-Class and Foreign-Born Latinos Jobs The quantitative analyses showed that Latino 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. Year-round employment leads to permanent settlement of foreign-born workers because it is no longer necessary or economically profitable to migrate for employment. Therefore, regional areas undergoing agricultural restructuring from seasonal to long-term crops experience more growth in the permanent settlement of farmworkers. The availability of agricultural jobs has a larger impact on Latino population growth than does the availability of other types of jobs because these jobs are aimed primarily at low-skill Latino workers. Moreover, the effect of year-round agricultural employment on Latino settlement goes beyond its attraction of low-wage field and food-processing plant workers. U.S.-born 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.-born 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 that 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. They know what services are needed by farmworkers, and if they have the language, skills, and networks to meet those needs, they can develop successful careers. Housing Cost of living factors are also important for understanding the settlement decisions of foreign-born Latinos. Because the location of fieldwork varies from job to job, housing affordability is more salient for farmworkers 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. In a tight housing market, any type of housing growth can enhance low-income housing availability, as older units are vacated for newer homes. Therefore, it is not just low-income housing growth that leads to Latino population growth. The Latino 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, as well as housing affordability, predicted all types of population growth. Housing growth opens up affordable housing without necessarily lowering average housing costs. Quality of Life Factors Finally, the quality of life factors that are important to middle-class Latinos and Anglos are less salient to foreign-born Latinos 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. Previous research has assumed that the relative differences of Latino concentration in rural California communities are due to relative differences in Latino population growth resulting from low-skill job availability, lack of economic opportunity in Mexico and Central America, and social networks among migrants. However, we have shown that the relative differences in ethnic population concentration should be attributed to varying growth patterns among non-Latino Whites as well as Latinos. We can divide the process of ethnic into three simultaneously-occurring phases. In the first phase, that of agricultural restructuring, the existence of labor-intensive employment attracts foreign-born Latino workers. If employment is available year-round, migrant workers eventually settle in communities in which they can afford housing. Where affordable housing is not available, people find means to make it affordable such as "doubling up," or commuting. In the second phase, non-Latino White residents move out of the community in greater numbers as more Latinos settle locally. This encourages further Latino settlement and further White emigration. In the third phase, networks of social capital enhance opportunities for employment, housing, and services for newly arrived Latinos. The availability of workers, in turn, encourages further intensification of agricultural employment. It is likely that the Latino population in California's agricultural communities will continue to increase throughout the next decade. Interviews with residents of Anglo and Latino communities indicated that non-Hispanic White residents are not moving into communities that are considered "Mexican towns." This is true even among Anglos who find employment in Latino communities. Communities that are currently 80 to 90% Latino will probably be almost 100% Latino in the recent future. Anglo communities will likely see increased percentages of Latinos over the next decade, but the ethnic change will likely be slower than it has been in those communities that are now predominantly Hispanic. Non-Latinos continue to move into the ethnically-mixed communities, along with Latinos. These communities provide a middle-class rural environment that many people appreciate. Research is currently emerging on rural Midwest and Eastern places that are becoming increasingly Latino, including a few places that now have a majority of Latino residents. Informal observational evidence suggests that similar processes are occurring in these areas. 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. Several policy implications also arise from these findings, for both places in California that are experiencing ethnic transformations and for other rural areas that might want to avoid re-creating the spatial ethnic and economic divisions that are occurring in 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, however, 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. As a result of the apparent deterioration of the community, middle class (Anglo) residents leave, further impoverishing 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. However, it is possible that Latino communities can recover economically, once the community conflict that often accompanies ethnic transformation begins to heal. Two of the communities studied in-depth in this project showed signs of substantial improvement in terms of a lessening of community political conflict, improved housing, and greater availability of funds for economic development. In both cases these improved conditions occurred because of decisive victories of political leaders, more aggressive city efforts to pursue federal and state grants, and more interest in community redevelopment projects. City employees, and many community residents, showed considerable optimism about the future, based on the city improvements they had accomplished within recent years. People in both cities also contrasted the recent improvements to periods of community stagnation, and remarked on the political conflict that has existed in their communities. Furthermore, several business and political leaders mentioned the economic potential that exists in Latino communities, if the right businesses could be developed. One county government official remarked about a 95% Latino community, "the market now is second and third generation Mexican Americans. Already, this community has developed (one business) that attracts Latinos from all over the area. If similar businesses could be developed and expanded, the potential for this community is great." However, Latino leadership, governmental focus on low-income community members, and Latino business development can not be seen as an automatic solution to economic stagnation. Latino leaders are not necessarily more concerned about low-income residents than are Anglo leaders. Even if they are, investment in housing and services for low-income community members can lead to increasing numbers of low-income residents in the community, and, therefore, greater concentration of poverty. Furthermore, business development requires more than a market for goods. Portes and Manning (1986) note 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, business skills is the most crucial. In many of the Latino communities, there are much lower levels of education, with large proportions of the adult population lacking even a high school education. Without substantial development of human capital, substantial business development may be difficult. There is a great deal of entrepreneurship among Latinos in Latino communities. However, thriving economies are not developing from these businesses (e.g., see Calo 1995). Owners of new, smaller businesses with whom we spoke discussed the need for educational programs and legal assistance so that they could learn the laws, policies, and skills necessary for business survival. 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, prompting them to leave. Efforts to incorporate newcomers into community clubs and activities, and Spanish-language classes for established residents, might help to relieve the mistrust that exists between the two groups. Of course, if these things are to happen established community residents must first recognize the newcomers as part of the community. Alarcon, Rafael. 1996. "Rural Poverty and Immigration from Mexico in Madera County, California." JSRI Working Paper #27, The Julian Samora Research Institute, Michigan State University. October 1996. Allensworth, Elaine and Refugio I. Rochín. 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. 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. 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. Calo, Bea Violanda. 1995. Chicano Entrepreneurship in Rural California: An Empirical Analysis. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Davis. Cantu, Lionel. 1995. "The Peripheralization of Rural America: A Case Study of Latino Migrants in America's Heartland." Sociological Perspectives, 38(3): 399-414. Cohen, Robin. 1987. The New Helots: Migrants in the International Division of Labor. Brookfield, Vt.: Gower. Coleman, James S. 1988. "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital." American Journal of Sociology, 94 - Supplement: 95-120. Fitchen, Janet. 1995. "Spatial Redistribution of Poverty through Migration of Poor People to Depressed Rural Communities." Rural Sociology 60(2): 181-201. Fox, Kenneth. 1985. Metropolitan America: Urban Life and Urban Policy in the United States, 1940-1980. Rutgers Press: New Brunswick, N.J. Frey, William H. 1995. "Immigration and Internal Migration 'Flight' From U.S. Metropolitan Areas: Toward a New Demographic Balkanisation." Urban Studies, 32 (4-5): 733-757. Huang, Tzu-Ling and Peter F. Orazem. 1996. "An Analysis of the Causes and Consequences of Foreign-Born 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. James, Franklin. 1990. "City Need and Distress in the United States: 1970 to the Mid-1980's." Pp. 13-31 in Marshall Kaplan and Franklin James (eds.) The Future of National Urban Policy, Durham: Duke University. Krissman, Fred. 1995. "Cycles of Poverty in Rural Californian Towns: comparing McFarland and Farmersville in the Southern San Joaquin Valley." Paper presented at the conference "Immigration and the Changing Face of Rural California," Asilomar, Calif. 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." Pop. Development and Review 20(4): 699-752. Palerm, Juan Vicente. 1991. Farm Labor Needs and Farm Workers in California 1970 to 1989. California Agricultural Studies Report #91-2: University of California, Santa Barbara. 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 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. Rochín, 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, Calif. June 12-14. Runsten, David, Ed Kissam, and JoAnn Intili. 1995. "Parlier: The Farmworker Service Economy." Paper presented at Asilomar, Calif., June 12-14. Sassen, Saskia. 1988. The Mobility of Labor and Capital. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University. 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. 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. Segura, Denise A. 1992. "Chicanas in White-Collar Jobs: You Have to Prove Yourself More." Sociological Perspectives 35(1): 163-182. Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin. 1991. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Beverly Hills: Sage. Taylor, J. Edward. 1995. "Immigration and the Changing Economies of Rural California." Paper presented at Asilomar, Calif., June 12-14. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1993. Census of Population and Housing 1990 Summary Table File 3 Technical Documentation. Washington, D.C. Warren, Roland L. 1978. The Community in America, Third Edition. Chicago: Rand McNally. 1 The census of agriculture is taken every five years, including 1982, 1987, and 1992. The 1987 data is 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 crucial as California agriculture experienced a catastrophic freeze in 1990, subsequent to the collection of population and housing data. 2 e.g., If 50% of the residents of a community reported themselves as Hispanic in 1980, and 75% reported themselves Hispanic in 1990, the value of this variable for this community would be 25. 3 e.g., If the number of Latino residents of a community increased from 1000 to 1500 between 1980 and 1990, that community had a 50% growth in Latino population (percent Latino population growth = 50). Non-Latino population growth is used in place of non-Latino population loss to minimize confusion, as Latino population change is discussed in terms of growth instead of loss. 4 Factor loadings for the first and second measure are, respectively: percentage growth in farms with hired labor (-.19, .82), percentage growth in wages towards hired labor (.46, -.12), percentage growth in average farm size (.84, -.01), percentage growth in crop values (.16, .68), percentage growth in farms operated by owner (-.64, -.29). 5 Multicollinearity was low in all regression models presented in this paper, with VIF values below 2.0. 6 Latino population growth ranged from a loss of 77% of the Latino population in one community to a growth of 1391% in another community. The average Latino population growth was 115%. 7 Non-Latino population growth ranged from a loss of 69% in one community to a growth of 338% in another community. The average non-Latino population growth was 23%. 8 The city of Exeter, for example, saw a 14% growth in non-Latino population between 1980 and 1990, while neighboring places such as Woodlake, Farmersville, Lindsay, and Ivanhoe experienced declining non-Latino population over the same decade. This pattern can be seen repeatedly throughout the region in which the qualitative data was collected. |
|
|
 |
For more information, contact: |