Published by Blackwell Publishers Ltd.,108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK, and350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

© 2002 IOMInternational Migration Vol. 40 (2) 2002

ISSN 0020-7985

* University of Chicago and University of Pennsylvania; Michigan State University.

Ethnic Communities and EthnicOrganizations Reconsidered:

South-East Asians and EasternEuropeans in Chicago

Lorraine Majka and Brendan Mullan*

ABSTRACT

A major debate continues about whether immigrants receive benefits byvirtue of their attachment to ethnic communities and ethnic organizations. Onone side of the controversy, a large body of literature suggests that the ethniccommunity, which often contains resources that promote immigrants’adaptation and assimilation, actually hinders adaptation because theresources of mainstream institutions are less accessible to immigrants (oftenbecause they are also minorities). On the opposite side of the argument,critics contend that the ethnic solidarity school emphasizes the positiveeffects of ethnic communities and ethnic organizations on immigrantpopulations, while ignoring many of the negative consequences of migrants’involvement in ethnic groups and ethnic institutions.

The purpose of this article is to reconsider whether ethnic communitiesand ethnic institutions facilitate immigrants’ socio-economic adaptation.Specifically, the study analyses the impact of ethnic organizations on publicassistance utilization among South-East Asian and Eastern Europeanrefugees in the Chicago metropolitan area in the late 1980s.

The paper proceeds in five stages. As a background to the overall study, theliterature on ethnic communities and ethnic organizations is reviewed. Thisis followed by a discussion of the development of mutual assistanceassociations (MAAs) in the US. Third is a concise description of the data andmethods. Fourth is a presentation of the results. The article concludes withan assessment of the implications of the findings and suggestions forfuture research.

72 Majka and Mullan

INTRODUCTION

The Ethnic Solidarity School

In a well-known article, Breton (1964) argues that ethnic communities containresources that have a significant influence on immigrants’ adaptation. In par-ticular, ethnic communities that are high in institutional completeness develop aformal structure. Institutionally complete communities also contain organizationsof various sorts, including religious, educational, political, recreational, national,professional, welfare, and mutual aid societies. Breton contends that theorganizations’ social, cultural, and economic resources develop forces that havethe effect of keeping the social relations of the immigrants within thecommunity’s boundaries. The presence of the formal organizations also assiststhe immigrants with their social and economic adaptation.

The Ethnic Economy

Another large body of literature (Light, 1972; Bonacich, 1973; Light, 1984, 1994;Light and Bonacich, 1988; Light and Rosenstein, 1995; Light and Gold, 2000)argues that immigrants receive benefits by virtue of their attachment to the ethniceconomy. The ethnic economy consists of co-ethnic self-employed, employers,unpaid family members, and co-ethnic employees (Light and Gold, 2000).

Social science concern with the ethnic economy began in 1972 with thepublication of Ethnic Enterprise in America by Ivan Light. Using both a soft andhard version of cultural theory, Light compared Chinese, Japanese, and African-American self-employment in the US between 1880 and 1940. Light found thatsocial trust among immigrants from southern China and Japan supported theirentrepreneurship. Asian immigrants also used traditional rotating creditassociations to assist co-ethnics with capitalizing on small business ventures.

In the following year, Edna Bonacich (1973) published an influential paper onmiddleman minorities. It was the first to examine the distinctive attributes ofthe ethnic economy in advanced capitalist countries. She stressed how ethnicowners assisted other ethnics by mobilizing co-ethnic resources to enhance theprofitability of small, liquidable enterprises. One of the most important of theseresources was the formation of horizontal and vertical linkages with other co-ethnic firms. By restricting competition or by lowering the costs of inputs, theselinkages created business advantages in a manner reminiscent of monopolies.The consequence was a great deal of convergence in, and domination of, certainlines of endeavour. A second, equally important way that ethnic ownersbenefited from ethnic resources was by hiring co-ethnics who were paid verylow wages in exchange for paternalistic benefits, such as on-the-job training orassistance with eventual self employment.

73Ethnic communities and ethnic organizations reconsidered

In a case study on Koreans in Los Angeles, Light and Bonacich (1988) alsoexamined both the characteristics of the economic niche and the resourcesof the Korean immigrants. They found that a tangled web of macroscopic andmicroscopic factors facilitated Korean immigrants’ socio-economicadaptation. In relation to the Koreans’ niche, they emphasized the lack ofcompetition from large retail chains in poverty areas, the selective effects ofthe investor’s exemption provision of the US immigration law, and the taxbenefits of independent contractors. These external influences created theeconomic conditions in which Korean entrepreneurs could exploit their classand ethnic resources. In relation to resources, the authors stressed theKoreans’ patriarchal family structures, Protestant religious beliefs, higheducational attainments, rotating credit associations, and other social networks.

More recently, Gold (1992) has argued that ethnic communities possesscollective assets and institutions that help ethnic group members overcomeharsh discrimination in the labour market. Light and Gold (2000) also contendthat successful ethnic ownership economies “accelerate wealth creation,income generation, and employment options for coethnics” (2000:78). In theirview, even unsuccessful ethnic economies, small and concentrated in theinformal sector, have the power to shift individuals from a condition ofstarvation to survival, a type of movement up the stratification system.

The Ethnic Enclave

In various writings on Miami Cubans, Portes and his associates (Portes, 1981,1987, 1995a, 1995b; Wilson and Portes, 1980; Wilson and Martin, 1982; Portesand Bach, 1985; Portes and Manning, 1986; Portes and Jensen, 1987, 1989;Portes and Stepick, 1993) focus on the ethnic enclave, a concept that derivesfrom dual labour market theory. Ethnic enclaves are spatially clusterednetworks of businesses owned by members of the same minority group(Portes, 1995b).

In the earliest formulations of the ethnic enclave, Wilson and Portes (1980) andWilson and Martin (1982) argued that the socio-economic adaptation of someimmigrant minorities had a structural explanation. Cubans’ successfuladjustment was the result of an integration of economic institutions along ethniclines that allowed for the superior recapture of co-ethnic spending.

In a later investigation, Portes and Bach (1985) compared the labour marketexperiences of Cuban and Mexican immigrant men in the US. They found thatCubans had a well-developed ethnic enclave that could produce autonomousopportunities for its members and Mexicans did not. Portes and Bach arguedthat this variation was the result of a different intersection of ethnicity and classin the experiences of the two immigrant groups.

74 Majka and Mullan

In contrast to Mexicans, a significant characteristic of the class structure thatdeveloped as Cuban refugees integrated into the Miami economy was theproliferation of a small-scale business community. Assistance from organizedsocial networks within the Cuban economy and contact with other Cubanbusiness institutions propelled numerous Cubans into independent business. Inturn, members of the new economic sector facilitated their co-ethnics’ socio-economic integration by extending employment opportunities to newly arrivedCubans. Wilson and Portes (1980) and Portes and Bach (1985) also found thatemployees in the ethnic enclave earned higher education-adjusted wages thantheir ethnic counterparts in the general economy.

Finally, Zhou (1992) has argued that New York’s Chinatown contains collectiveassets and institutions that promote immigrants’ social and economic adjustment.In her view, the ethnic enclave provides potential entrepreneurs and workerswith the following benefits: 1) a familiar environment in which they areeffectively shielded from deficiencies in language, education, and generalknowledge about the larger society; 2) an extensive kinship network thatchannels information; 3) a unique way of mobilizing capital resources, forexample, rotating credit; and 4) a set of cultural values and norms that reinforcean achievement orientation, the work ethnic, and the ability to postponegratification (1992: 115). Zhou also claims that enclave employment offersworkers the possibility of working longer hours to help contribute more to familysavings, a savings of the time and effort involved in finding a good job in the largermarket, and for some, the possibility of eventual transition to self-employment.

The Critics

A large number of investigators have questioned many of the ethnic solidarityschool’s assertions and findings. Several critics contend that ethnic communitiesand ethnic enclaves disadvantage all or some ethnic group members (Desbarats,1986; Sanders and Nee, 1987; Zhou and Logan, 1989).

Desbarats (1986) examined differences in adaptive behaviours in Sino-Vietnamese and ethnic Vietnamese refugees resettled in Illinois and Cali-fornia. She discovered that ethnic Chinese refugees in ethnic enclavesexperienced disadvantage with respect to both acculturation and economic self-sufficiency variables.

Sanders and Nee (1987) analysed 1980 census data for Cuban immigrants inFlorida and for Chinese immigrants in California. They found that the enclaveeconomy benefited employers and disadvantaged workers. Sanders and Neeargued that an enclave-economy model was only supported in the case ofentrepreneurs. In their opinion, an assimilation view, which contends immigrantsprogress by orderly adapting to the dominant group, better explained theoutcomes of immigrant employees.

75Ethnic communities and ethnic organizations reconsidered

Zhou and Logan (1989) then joined the enclave debate in three ways. First,they replicated Sanders and Nee’s study in another enclave situation, NewYork’s Chinatown. Second, they explored and contrasted three possible waysof delineating the economic enclave: by place of residence, by place of work,and by industry. Third, they incorporated a separate examination of the labourmarket condition of migrant women, who comprised a major portion of theenclave labour force, but who had been neglected in prior investigations. Zhouand Logan found that New York’s Chinese enclave primarily benefited men.

Other researchers maintain that ethnic communities and ethnic enclaves aremixed blessings (e.g., Johnson, 1988; Cichon, Gimbert, and Grover, 1986).Johnson (1988) explored the work experiences of South-East Asian refugeesin British Columbia during the first 18 months of resettlement, and two yearslater. On the positive side, Johnson argues that the ethnic community may easeethnic group members’ transition into the land of relocation, lower public aiddependency rates by providing employment, and help members reassess theiroccupations, positions, and roles. On the negative side, Johnson suggests thatemployment in ethnic communities may segregate new arrivals from themainstream, obstructing opportunities for occupational advancement. Johnsonconcludes that immigrants who rely on ethnic communities may exchangefinancial self-independence for occupational mobility.

Cichon, Gimbert, and Grover (1986) also examined the socio-economicadaptation experiences of non South-East refugees in Dallas, Chicago,Virginia/DC, Los Angeles, and New York City. They also conclude that “atfirst an enclave is a definite plus; it decreases the cultural shock thatimmigrants are bound to experience upon entering the US”. But in the long run,it takes ethnic enclave members considerably longer to enter the mainstreamAmerican society than is the situation in metropolises which do not have largeethnic communities.

Finally, some investigators (Model, 1992; Logan, Alba, and McNutly, 1994)contend that ethnic enclaves have little effect on most immigrants’ lives or areatypical situations. Model (1992) reconsidered the socio-economic situation ofMiami Cuban and Bay Area Chinese immigrant males. She found nodifference between the returns to labour in the ethnic enclave economy and thegeneral labour market. Logan, Alba, and McNutly (1994) examined the labourmarket status of racial and ethnic group members in 17 metropolitan areas.They found that the ethnic enclave economy was a relatively rare phenomenonin the US.

This article re-examines the advantages and disadvantages of ethniccommunities and ethnic organizations for migrant populations. It focuses on theorientation, activities, and operations of South-East Asian and EasternEuropean refugee self-help organizations.

76 Majka and Mullan

THE DEVELOPMENT OF REFUGEE MUTUALASSISTANCE ASSOCIATIONS (MAAS)

Over time, US officials who dealt with refugee populations adopted the ethnicsolidarity school’s position. They came to believe that the benefits of refugeeself-help organizations far outweighed their liabilities (Zucker and Zucker, 1987;Gold, 1992; Mortland, 1993; Hein, 1995).

Specifically, upon the arrival of South-East Asian refugees in the US in 1975,some Americans and refugee leaders argued that assistance could be providedas well, if not better, to the refugees by South-East Asian organizations. Theframers of refugee resettlement policies strongly encouraged South-East Asiansto retain and build upon their ethnic, class, and family resources as a meansof adapting to life in the US. (Finnan and Cooperstein, 1983; Lewin andAssociations, 1986; Gold, 1992). Refugee MAAs were viewed as organizationsthat were able to provide a broad range of assistance to refugees, and in so doing,relieve migrants of many of their social and economic adaptation difficulties inthe US (Khoa and Bui, 1985; Mortland, 1993).

To encourage the creation, growth, and development of refugee MAAs, theDepartment of Health, Education, and Welfare established an IndochineseMutual Assistance Division to act as a liaison with, and provide technicalassistance to, the MAAs. The Office of Refugee Resettlement, after itsformation within the Department of Health and Human Services, gave directgrants to a small number of MAAs nationwide for a variety of services such asorientation, counselling, employment assistance, and interpreting. A MAAincentive grant initiative followed in 1982, designed to encourage states to fundMAAs as part of their refugee programmes (Lewin and Associations, 1986;Zucker and Zucker, 1987; Gold, 1992). By the late 1980s, more than 1,200 South-East Asian and non South-East Asian refugee MAAs had been created withinthe US (Mortland, 1993; Hein, 1995).

Several studies have attempted to assess and explain the impact of MAAs withinrefugee communities (Finnan and Cooperstein, in SRI, 1983; Lewin andAssociates, 1986; Jenkins, 1988; Mortland, 1993; Van Arsdale, 1990, 1993). VanArsdale attempts to move beyond the traditional anthropological notions ofcultural identity and geographic or territorial identity to investigate “the functionalattributes of identity as determined by non-geographic boundary-shapingprocesses” (Van Arsdale, 1990: 2). One such process involves the economic,social, and cultural resource allocation strategies which exist in refugeecommunities and are operationalized through MAAs. Van Arsdale notes thetremendous diversity in purpose, objectives, and activities among and withinrefugee ethnic groups. Refugee MAAs have cultural, religious, educational,professional, social, and economic purposes. The support that they provide forco-ethnics ranges from informal socio-cultural and recreational events to

77Ethnic communities and ethnic organizations reconsidered

educational placement advice to job identification and placement skills. TheStanford Research Institute (SRI) research focused on the social and economicadjustment role of MAAs and found both intangible social and emotional supportand more tangible financial support for personal and business undertakings.

DATA AND METHODS

The Illinois Refugee Consortium collected the data for the analysis. The Chicagoarea is a logical site to study public assistance receipt patterns among refugeesfrom various parts of the world. In the 1980s, Illinois was consistently among thetop ten receiving areas for South-East Asian refugees. Furthermore, the Chicagourban metropolitan area contained the largest and most developed Polishcommunity in the US, and possessed substantial Soviet, Romanian, Latino, andAfrican-American residential districts.

The data are derived from a statewide refugee database on refugees settling inIllinois maintained by the administrative units of the Illinois Refugee System (theIllinois Bureau of Naturalization Services and the Jewish Federation ofMetropolitan Chicago). During 1987 and 1988, 15 voluntary agencies, MAAs,and public and private entities contributed information on refugees in Illinois.

Two questionnaires, a demographic profile, and an activity record werecompleted for each refugee resettled and assisted in the state. The demographicinstrument sought information on a forced migrant’s background and currentpersonal and contextual characteristics. The activity record instrument soughtinformation on refugees’ employment, job seeking and job retention endeavours,English language capacity, and forms of assistance utilized. For the analysespresented here, monthly data for 1987 and 1988 were consolidated for activeemployable adults (i.e., persons older than age 15).

The principal independent variables in the analysis are type of assistance-organization support and area of origin. Type of support is a binary variablereflecting support from refugee MAAs or from traditional voluntaryorganizations. Support means ethnic community organizations and mainstreaminstitutions provided their constituents with individual and/or group jobcounselling, job referrals, job placements, and mediation between refugees andtheir potential employers. The organizations also offered orientation, women andyouth projects, or other forms of adjustment assistance to refugees originatingfrom less-developed regions. Moreover, the constituents of various refugeeorganizations were eligible to receive English training and culturally sensitiveforms of counselling for overcoming post-traumatic stress conditions related towitnessing the act or effects of torture.

Area of origin is coded at a general level for descriptive analyses; Cambodian,Laotian, Vietnamese, Ethnic Chinese, Polish, Romanian, Soviet, and All Others

78 Majka and Mullan

(Afghan, African, Assyrian, Cuban, Ethiopian, Haitian, Iranian, Iraqi, and severalNicaraguans and El Salvadorians) for refugees from other primarily less-developed regions. For the multivariate analysis the focus is only on refugeesfrom South-East Asia and Eastern Europe because there were insufficientnumbers from other regions. Of the South-East Asians, 37 per cent are Viet-namese, 29 per cent are Cambodian, 23 per cent are Laotian, and 11 per cent areEthnic Chinese from Vietnam. Of the Eastern Europeans, 47 per cent are Poles,38 per cent are Romanians, and 15 per cent are from the former Soviet Union.

Other independent variables used in the analysis are: chronological age, lengthof residence, education in country of origin, number of dependents (all continuousvariables), gender, household head status, marital status, and current Englishproficiency level. Age refers to a refugee’s chronological age in 1988. Lengthof residence is calculated as the year of the survey minus the date of entranceinto the US as noted on the refugee’s I- 94 immigration card. Education refersto the amount of schooling a refugee completed in his/her native country or otherplace of residence outside the US.

Household head status and marital status are binary variables reflectinghousehold head rank or not, and ever or never married. Household heads are theprimary wage earners for the economic unit, the only employed adult in thedwelling, or the individual who is temporarily unemployed but likely to becomethe primary wage earner based on ability and skill 1evels.

Finally, a refugee’s English proficiency was determined through the admin-istration of a standardized international examination, the Basic English Skills Test(BEST). From established guidelines (MELT, 1985), refugees’ raw BESTscores are categorized into student performance levels ranging from one,indicating that the individual functions minimally, if at all, in English, to tendenoting fluency in both the writing and speaking of English.

In the regression analyses, the dependent variable is a binary dichotomy codedone if the refugee received public assistance (AFDC, cash assistance, Medicaid,refugee medical assistance) and zero otherwise. The dichotomous nature ofthese dependent variables makes estimation of the models by customary OLSmethods inappropriate (Aldrich and Nelson, 1984). Conventional logisticregression equations are fit to the data here and the resulting log odds-ratioparameters are presented together with their standard errors. Four equations arereported in all; male and female models for South-East Asian and EasternEuropean refugees respectively.

RESULTS

Refugees’ receipt of public assistance controlling for gender, area of origin, andselected socio-demographic variables are displayed in Table 1. Table 2 attempts

79Ethnic communities and ethnic organizations reconsidered

to control for age and cohort effects for the fixed period of 1987 and 1988 andadds the additional controls of area of origin and gender.

TABLE 1

PERCENTAGE OF REFUGEES RECEIVING PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BY GENDER, AREA OF ORIGIN, AND SELECTED SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES

Male South-East

Asia Eastern Europe

Other Total

Agency access Self-help

organization 62.85 22.50 33.33 62.24

Mainstream organization 41.37 38.41 58.95 44.99

Education

0-5 years 62.22 33.33 48.78 58.80 6-8 years 57.98 60.87 65.00 59.18 9-11 years 57.71 47.48 56.36 54.37 12 years 54.55 34.38 67.03 52.27 13+ years 65.79 30.29 55.17 38.58

Age

15-24 56.82 61.54 73.33 58.23 25-34 49.35 32.24 52.17 45.62 35-44 63.21 30.69 54.95 48.72 45-54 69.23 41.46 74.07 59.73 55+ 82.43 63.41 88.89 77.61

Time in the US

1 year 94.87 39.02 90.00 69.23 2 years 75.56 30.25 69.32 51.08 3 years 82.94 59.06 77.55 73.41 4 years 77.78 51.79 56.52 68.86 5 years 70.00 34.29 46.34 59.45 6-9 years 37.56 14.04 40.45 35.58 10+ years 22.88 16.67 75.00 24.03

Household dependents

70.04 37.69 73.10 60.81

Total 58.35 38.04 58.72 52.90

N 1,191 560 327 2,078

80 Majka and Mullan

TABLE 1 CONTINUED

Female South-East

Asia Eastern Europe

Other Total

Agency access Self-help

organization 67.34 20.00 100.00 67.16

Mainstream organization 47.14 37.10 63.92 44.11

Education

0-5 years 69.86 42.86 69.23 68.10 6-8 years 52.02 81.82 57.14 56.33 9-11 years 56.99 48.00 75.00 55.48 12 years 55.21 42.68 65.22 51.24 13+ years 36.36 22.78 52.94 25.96

Age

15-24 60.29 37.84 57.14 56.85 25-34 54.39 32.71 50.00 48.63 35-44 53.76 33.06 81.82 47.47 45-54 85.95 40.54 77.78 69.48 55+ 82.93 52.78 85.71 70.24

Time in the US

1 year 93.55 34.38 100.00 65.15 2 years 76.92 27.54 64.00 46.64 3 years 86.61 54.32 69.23 72.82 4 years 81.67 47.83 78.57 72.78 5 years 71.70 42.11 84.62 68.84 6-9 years 40.07 18.52 46.67 38.97 10+ years 30.56 66.67 50.00 32.47

Household dependents

76.57 46.67 75.00 70.97

Total 61.77 36.80 65.00 54.81

N 824 375 100 1,299

81Ethnic communities and ethnic organizations reconsidered

TABLE 2A

SOUTH-EAST ASIAN REFUGEES RECEIVING PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BY AGE AND PERIOD OF ARRIVAL IN THE US: CHICAGO 1987-1988 (per cent)

Male 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+ Total N

1988 100.0 83.33 85.71 100.0 100.0 94.87 39 1987 68.89 75.00 86.96 83.33 71.43 75.56 135 1986 75.93 87.76 84.21 86.67 85.71 82.94 170 1985 68.97 77.78 80.00 82.61 100.0 77.78 171 1984 62.22 60.47 83.33 88.24 81.82 70.00 140 1983 43.33 54.55 62.50 80.00 75.00 54.55 77 1982 41.67 31.43 50.00 62.50 100.0 42.17 83 1981 41.67 13.85 34.78 40.00 83.33 31.10 164 1980 32.14 19.51 11.11 55.56 85.71 30.85 94 <1979 28.95 16.13 21.43 20.00 33.33 22.88 118

N 403 385 212 117 74 1,191

Female 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+ Total N

1988 100.0 77.78 100.0 100.0 100.0 93.55 31 1987 70.00 82.14 83.33 63.64 100.0 76.92 91 1986 90.00 78.79 88.89 92.00 83.33 86.61 112 1985 84.21 76.92 68.75 100.0 100.0 81.67 120 1984 51.52 76.47 71.43 94.94 85.71 71.70 106 1983 38.46 47.83 61.11 60.00 80.00 53.13 64 1982 63.64 47.37 20.00 80.00 77.78 48.89 45 1981 52.00 24.49 20.00 72.73 33.33 39.45 109 1980 22.73 23.08 11.11 80.00 100.0 24.32 74 <1979 25.00 20.00 21.74 30.56 72

N 204 285 173 121 41 824

82 Majka and Mullan

TABLE 2B

EASTERN EUROPEAN REFUGEES RECEIVING PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BY AGE AND PERIOD OF ARRIVAL IN THE US: CHICAGO 1987-1988 (per cent)

Male 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+ Total N

1988 66.67 27.27 25.71 25.00 50.00 37.50 40 1987 57.14 27.47 25.88 30.00 36.36 30.25 238 1986 66.67 48.89 53.68 77.78 100.0 59.06 127 1985 50.00 35.29 41.18 63.64 88.89 51.79 56 1984 22.22 30.77 25.00 100.0 34.29 35 1983 33.33 25.00 50.00 15.79 19 1982 100.0 20.00 18.52 27 1981 9 1980 2 <1979 6

N 52 183 202 82 41 560

Female 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+ Total N

1988 40.00 14.29 44.44 33.33 40.00 34.38 32 1987 37.50 30.19 20.75 23.08 36.36 27.54 167 1986 75.00 39.39 60.00 68.75 60.67 54.32 81 1985 55.56 31.25 58.33 71.43 47.83 46 1984 37.50 50.00 60.00 42.11 19 1983 25.00 100.0 20.00 10 1982 20.00 25.00 25.00 12 1981 1980 <1979

N 37 107 121 74 36 375

83Ethnic communities and ethnic organizations reconsidered

Multivariate analysis assesses the simultaneous effect of a broad matrix ofindependent variables on public assistance utilization. Table 3 shows the resultsof four regression models predicting receipt of public assistance for refugees bygender. Each regression parameter estimate measures the change in thedependent variable for a unit change in the independent variable. In other words,each parameter tells how the log-odds in favour of receiving public assistancechanges as education, say, changes by one unit.

Although all of the tables contain information that is noteworthy as a confirmationor extension of what we already know about refugees’ patterns of public aidutilization, the role played by diverse organizational support structures isparticularly novel and interesting. In the case of South-East Asians, new arrivalsand longer-term residents of both genders who were supported by mainstreamorganizations were less likely to use public assistance funds for their dailyendeavours or very survival. Most obviously, this result is related to the fact thateven peripheral linkages with conventional institutions and networks providedSouth-East Asian refugees with a broader spectrum of employment possibilities,information channels, and strategies of survival in the larger society. In turn, theheightened options increased the probability of self-sufficiency and use of meansof financial support other than public aid.

Simultaneously, the result indicates that ethnic organizations were not able to tapresources for South-East Asians. This finding suggests that perhaps refugeecommunity organizations still were not fully accepted or granted equal status inlocal infrastructures and power bases. Consequently, the majority of South-EastAsian refugees who were forced to mainly rely on their own community’s lessempowered and more isolated organizations had substantially less probability ofacquiring short or long-term employment and reducing their cyclical or ongoingneed for public funds.

Interestingly, an opposite set of dynamics appears to be operating in the case ofEastern Europeans, irrespective of gender or age. This regional group’sassociation with ethnic organizations lessened their use of government financesand facilitated a movement out of poverty. Although there were major divisionsbetween new arrivals and long-term residents, many Eastern Europeans joinedwell-established communities. Many of their support groups also wereembedded in institutionally complete organizational networks.

Conversely, Eastern Europeans’ connection with mainstream assistancestructures promoted rather than suppressed the use of public assistance funds.There are several very plausible reasons for this situation. In the late 1980s, theentire refugee system in the US was still primarily geared to meet the immediateneeds of lower skilled, second wave South-East Asian refugees. Entrants fromVietnam, Cambodia, and Laos had dominated refugee arrival numbers, refugeesystem designs, and approaches to assistance delivery for more than a decade.

84 Majka and Mullan

TABLE 3

LOGISTIC REGRESSION PREDICTING RECEIPT OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE FOR REFUGEES BY GENDER AND AREA OF ORIGIN: CHICAGO 1987-1988

South-East Asia Eastern Europe Male Female Male Female

Independent variables

Age -0.10 (0.07)

-0.09 (0.10)

-0.24*** (0.10)

-0.20 (0.13)

Age squared

0.002* (0.001)

0.002 (0.001)

0.003*** (0.001)

0.003* (0.002)

Length of residence

-0.46*** (0.04)

-0.45*** (0.05)

-0.32*** (0.09)

-0.06 (0.12)

Education -0.01 (0.03)

-0.15*** (0.04)

-0.13*** (0.05)

-0.26*** (0.06)

Number of dependents

0.17*** (0.05)

0.13** (0.07)

0.35*** (0.11)

0.31* (0.16)

Household head

-0.16 (0.27)

0.74*** (0.28)

0.37 (0.73)

1.05** (0.49)

Mainstream support

-1.47*** (0.25)

-0.89*** (0.27)

1.12** (1.21)

2.60** (2.52)

Marital status

Ever married

0.36 (0.29)

-0.63** (0.32)

-0.58 (0.41)

-0.05 (0.53)

English proficiency

No English Ref Ref Ref Ref

Very poor -0.06 (0.30)

-0.10 (0.36)

0.19 (0.39)

0.002 (0.45)

Poor -0.01 (0.28)

0.09 (0.36)

0.27 (0.44)

0.03 (0.54)

Moderate -0.14 (0.29)

-0.62 (0.39)

0.28 (0.58)

-1.91** (0.93)

Good 0.04 (0.30)

-0.11 (0.41)

1.85** (0.57)

0.52 (0.83)

Excellent -0.57 (0.71)

-0.18 (0.73)

0.49 (0.59)

0.26 (0.80)

Intercept 4.48 5.21 4.92 -0.75 R statistic 0.495 0.495 0.295 0.344 Model X2 308.02** 204.42*** 58.09*** 56.79***

Notes: Standard errors in parentheses; *significant p<.10; **significant p<.05; ***significant p<.01.

85Ethnic communities and ethnic organizations reconsidered

Reductions in funding allocations in the refugee service delivery area had notalways encouraged or allowed ongoing and effective reorientations of theexisting structure. Hence, a largely South-East Asian orientation still oftendominated the style and operations of mainstream agencies whose primaryclientele did not originate in this region of the world. Given the system’spredominant focus and primary direction, many Eastern Europeans, with a bettereducation, more marketable skills, and greater familiarity with Western culturesimply did not need the types of jobs that the mainly South-East Asian-orientedmainstream system and its affiliated network of agencies could provide newarrivals and longer-term residents.

Other equally fundamental mechanisms may explain the Eastern Europeanmainstream support organization and public assistance relationship. Mostmainstream organizations that catered to this clientele often dealt with individualswho were professionals, semi-professionals, or skilled workers. A number ofthese individuals often had to undergo an approximately three to 20 monthprofessional recertification or vocational training programme upon theirresettlement in the US. With the support of their mainstream voluntaryorganization, it was not uncommon for refugees to rely on public assistance asthey went through the “retooling” process. In other situations and often with theencouragement of their mainstream provider, refugees may have been pursuingmore advanced degrees to allow them to meet the educational requirements fortheir occupations in the land of resettlement.

The traditional family breadwinner in Eastern European households may alsohave been improving his already fairly adequate English language skills. In otherinstances, mainstream organizations assisting Eastern Europeans may haveplaced a refugee on public aid and temporarily held the migrant out of the jobmarket until a placement was located which matched the refugee’s skill level andexperience and had heightened job retention possibilities. Finally, EasternEuropean public aid users associated with mainstream agencies may simply havebeen the victims of the structural barriers and overt discrimination which are notuncommon to those with foreign credentials.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This study reconsidered whether immigrants receive benefits by virtue of theirattachment to the ethnic community and ethnic organizations. The researchanalysed the impact of ethnic organizations on public assistance utilization amongSouth-East Asian and Eastern European refugees in the Chicago metropolitanarea in the late 1980s. While the results of this investigation are multifaceted, themost elementary – but also the most important finding – is that ethnicorganizations did not tap resources for South-East Asians, but did for Eastern Euro-peans. This result has implications at the theoretical, policy, and programme levels.

86 Majka and Mullan

In regard to theory, the results suggest that different models apply to the tworegional groups. An assimilation view, which contends immigrants progress byorderly adapting to the dominant group and majority institutions, best explains theoutcome of South-East Asian women and men. In the Chicago metropolitan areain the late 1980s, mainstream institutions were better able than ethnicorganizations to lessen South-East Asians’ need for public funds, secure employ-ment for the ethnic group members, and move the migrants out of poverty.

It is true that the South-East Asian situation was a somewhat mixed picture.Although South-East Asian community organizations did not transfer theircompatriots from a position of dependence to a state of self-reliance, they easedethnic group members’ passage into the local community and the broadersociety. The organizations also provided potential Indochinese entrepreneursand workers with a familiar environment, extensive kinship networks thatchannelled information, and a set of cultural values and norms that reinforced thework ethnic and achievement orientation. Finally, the ethnic organizations helpedcommunity members reassess their occupations, positions, and roles.

Yet, in this time, space, and place an attachment to mainstream institutions wasmore economically beneficial for South-East Asians than an affiliation withethnic organizations. Simply put, ethnic community organizations disadvantagedSouth-East Asians with respect to economic self-sufficiency variables.

Conversely, an ethnic enclave model, which contends that ethnic communitiesoften contain assets and institutions that promote immigrants’ adaptation, bestexplains the outcomes of Eastern European women and men. In the Chicagometropolitan area in the late 1980s, ethnic organizations were better able tolessen Eastern Europeans’ reliance on public funds, locate job placements for theethnic group members, and move the immigrants out of poverty than mainstreaminstitutions. In summary, ethnic community organizations advantaged EasternEuropeans with respect to economic self-sufficiency variables.

The fact that ethnic organizations are unable to tap resources for all immigrantpopulations has major implications for policies and programmes. In particular, theresults suggest that a two-tiered approach is needed to facilitate multi-ethnicimmigrants’ socio-economic adaptation. The approach needs to strongly supportMAAs that often perform the bulk of the most appropriate work in both the earlyand long-term settlement stages. Ethnic organizations require greater power,acceptance, status, instruction, and resources. These social institutions also needto be more fully interwoven into refugee-related partnerships that give equalvoice and power to community organizations, mainstream associations,employers, and other influential members of local infrastructures.

Simultaneously, the approach needs to incorporate a “fine-tuned” mainstreamsector. To prevent the cultural abandonment and institutional lag that happened

87Ethnic communities and ethnic organizations reconsidered

in the Eastern European situation, it is important that mainstream refugeeorganizations continually acclimate themselves to the backgrounds,experiences, expectations, and needs of new ethnic populations. Ethnic groups’social, occupational, cultural, and linguistic resources also need to be used increating, planning, implementing, staffing, and managing mainstream refugeeprogrammes. Since generalist (public and non-governmental) departments andagencies also play a pivotal role in saving some ethnic group members fromstarvation, generalist institutions also need to be incorporated into strongcollaborative efforts of private, public, and voluntary endeavours.

The models presented here only incorporate a broad categorization of areaof origin and a simple yes/no utilization measure of the use of publicfunds. Combining diverse groups into the categories South-East Asian andEastern European is a step back (or at least not forward) from research nowfocusing on specific nationality groups. In the future, we need comparativeinvestigations on whether ethnic communities and ethnic organizations arefacilitating specific nationality groups’ socio-economic adaptation.

Future studies also need to more explicitly address ethnic inequality issues. Inthis regard, we need more investigations on whether less-privileged, asopposed to more-privileged, forced migrant populations receive benefits byvirtue of their attachment to ethnic communities and ethnic institutions (Gans,2000). We also require a more comprehensive analysis of the role that raceplays in the ability of ethnic communities to facilitate various immigrants’ socio-economic integration (Sassen, 2000).

Finally, in order to gain a more complete understanding of the complexprocesses and structures involved in multi-ethnic migrants’ social, financial,and occupational adaptation, we need to move beyond a primary concentrationon the ethnic community and ethnic organizations. As Model (1985) arguedmore than a decade ago, we also need to bring the mainstream back in.

NOTE

1. The authors thank the Illinois Refugee Consortium, administered by the IllinoisDepartment of Public Aid, Bureau of Naturalization Services, and the JewishFederation of metropolitan Chicago, for access to their data. Also, wethank Professor Appleyard, anonymous reviewers, and the forced migrantswho participated in the investigation for their beneficial comments and support.Finally, the first author thanks the University of Pennsylvania, SolomonAsch Center for the Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict for their special lectures,materials, and contacts.

88 Majka and Mullan

REFERENCES

Ager, A. (Ed.)1999 Refugees: Perspectives on the Experience of Forced Migration, Cassell

Academic, London and New York.Breton, R.

1964 “Institutional completeness of ethnic communities and the personalrelations of immigrants”, American Journal of Sociology, 70(2): 193-205.

Bonacich, E.1973 “A theory of middleman minorities”, American Sociological Review, 38(5):

583-594.Caplan, N., J.K. Whitmore, and M.H. Choy

1989 The Boat People and Achievement in America: A Study of Family Life, HardWork, and Cultural Values, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Cichon, D., C.J. Gimbert, and J.G. Grover1986 The Economic and Social Adjustment of Non-South-East Asian Refugees,

vol. II, unpublished report.Desbarats, J.

1986 “Ethnic differences in adaptation: Sino-Vietnamese refugees in the UnitedStates”, International Migration Review, 20(2): 405-427.

Finnan, C.R., and R.A. Cooperstein1983 South-East Asian Refugee Resettlement at the Local Level: The Role of the

Ethnic Community and the Nature of Refugee Impact, Social SciencesCenter, Stanford Research Institute International, Menlo Park, California.

Gans, H.2000 “Filling in some holes: six areas of needed immigration research”, in N.

Foner, R. Rumbaut, and S.J. Gold (Eds), Immigration Research for a NewCentury, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.

Gold, S.1992 Refugee Communities: A Comparative Field Study, Sage Publications,

London and New Delhi.Hein, J.

1995 From Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia: A Refugee Experience in the UnitedStates, Twayne Publishers, New York.

Jenkins, S.1988 Ethnic Associations and the Welfare State, Columbia University Press, New

York.Johnson, P.J.

1988 “The impact of ethnic communities on the employment of South-East Asianrefugees”, Amerasia, 14(1): 1-22.

Khoa, L.X., and D.D. Bui1985 “South-East Asian mutual assistance associations: an approach for

community development”, in T.C. Owan, et al. (Eds.), South-East AsianMental Health: Treatment, Prevention, Services, Training, and Research,Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.

Lewin and Associates1986 Assessment of the MAA Incentive Grant Initiative, Department of Health

and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Washington, DC.

89Ethnic communities and ethnic organizations reconsidered

Light, I.1972 Ethnic Enterprise in America, University of California Press, Berkeley.1984 “Immigrant and ethnic enterprise in North America”, Ethnic and Racial

Studies, 7(2): 195-216.1994 “Ethnic enterprise in America: Japanese, Chinese, and Blacks”, in R. Takaki

(Ed.), From Different Shores: Perspectives on Race and Ethnicity inAmerica, Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford.

Light, I., and E. Bonacich1988 Immigrant Entrepreneurs, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Light, I., and S. Gold2000 Ethnic Economies, Academic Press, New York.

Light, I., and C. Rosenstein1995a Race, Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship in Urban America, Aldine De

Gruyter, New York.1995b “Expanding the interaction theory of entrepreneurship”, in A. Portes (Ed.),

The Economic Sociology of Immigration: Essays on Networks, Ethnicity,and Entrepreneurship, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.

Logan, J., R.D. Alba, and T.L. McNulty1994 “Ethnic economies in metropolitan regions: Miami and beyond”, Social

Forces, 72(3): 691-724.Model, S.

1992 “The ethnic economy: Cubans and Chinese reconsidered”, The Socio-logical Quarterly, 33(1): 63-82.

Mortland, C.1993 “Patron-client relations and the evolution of mutual assistance

associations”, in P.W. Van Arsdale (Ed.), Refugee Empowerment andOrganizational Change: A Systems Perspective, American Anthro-pological Association, Arlington, Virginia.

Portes, A.1981 “Modes of incorporation and theories of labor immigration”, in M. Kritz

et al., (Eds), Global Trends in Migration, Center for Migration Studies,New York.

1987 “The social origins of the Cuban ethnic economy of Miami”, SociologicalPerspectives, 30(4): 340-372.

1995a The Economic Sociology of Immigration: Essays on Networks, Ethnicity,and Entrepreneurship, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.

1995b “Economic sociology and the sociology of immigration: a conceptualoverview”, in A. Portes (Ed.), The Economic Sociology of Immigration:Essays on Networks, Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship, Russell SageFoundation, New York.

Portes, A., and R.L. Bach1985 Latin Journey: Cuban and Mexican Immigrants in the U.S., University of

California Press, Berkeley.Portes, A., and L. Jensen

1987 “What’s an ethnic enclave? The case for conceptual clarity”, AmericanSociological Review, 52: 768-771.

1989 “The enclave and the entrants: patterns of ethnic enterprise in Miami beforeand after Mariel”, American Sociological Review, 54: 929-949.

90 Majka and Mullan

Portes, A., and R.D. Manning1986 “The immigrant enclave: theory and empirical examples”, in S. Olzak and

J. Nagel (Eds), Contemporary Ethnic Relations, Academic Press, Orlando,Florida.

Portes, A., and A. Stepick1993 City on the Edge: The Transformation of Miami, University of California

Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.Sanders, J., and V. Nee

1987 “Limits of ethnic solidarity in the enclave economy”, American SociologyReview, 52: 745-767.

Sassen, S.2000 Quarterly workshop on globalization, the state, immigration, and the city,

University of Chicago, Fall.Van Arsdale, P.W.

1990 “The role of mutual assistance associations in refugee acculturation,identity maintenance and mental health”, Colorado Division of MentalHealth and University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, unpublished manuscript.

1993 Refugee Empowerment and Organizational Change: A SystemsPerspective, American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia.

Wilson, K.L., and W.A. Martin1982 “Ethnic enclaves: a comparison of the Cuban and Black economies in

Miami”, American Journal of Sociology, 88(1): 135-160.Wilson, K.L., and A. Portes

1980 “Immigrant enclaves: an analysis of the labor market experiences of Cubansin Miami”, American Journal of Sociology, 86(2): 295-319.

Zhou, M.1992 Chinatown, Temple University Press, Philadelphia.

Zhou, M., and J.R. Logan1989 “Returns on human capital in ethnic enclaves: New York City’s Chinatown”,

American Sociological Review, 54: 809-20.Zucker, N.L., and N.F. Zucker

1987 The Guarded Gate: The Reality of American Refugee Policy, HarcourtBrace, New York.

91Ethnic communities and ethnic organizations reconsidered

LES IMMIGRES D’ASIE DU SUD-EST ET D’EUROPE ORIENTALEA CHICAGO: UNE REMISE EN PERSPECTIVEDES

COMMUNAUTES ET DES ORGANISMESA FONDEMENT ETHNIQUE

Un important débat continue d’opposer deux conceptions antagonistes relativesaux effets que produisent sur les immigrés les liens qui les unissent à leurscommunautés et à leurs organismes. D’un côté, on fait valoir l’abondance dematériel défendant l’argument selon lequel les communautés ethniques, offrantfréquemment des ressources qui favorisent l’adaptation et l’assimilation desimmigrés, freinent en réalité cette adaptation en raison du fait que les ressourcesmises à disposition par les organismes classiques leur sont moins accessibles (laraison étant que, bien souvent, ils sont également minoritaires). De l’autre côté,on fait valoir l’argument selon lequel la solidarité ethnique souligne les effetspositifs de l’appartenance à une communauté et à des structures qui enrassemblent les membres, tout en ignorant bon nombre des conséquencesnégatives d’un tel embrigadement.

Le but poursuivi par les auteurs est d’établir si oui ou non les communautés etles institutions à caractère ethnique favorisent l’adaptation socio-économiquedes immigrés. Plus précisément, leur étude analyse l’impact des organismes àfondement ethnique sur le recours à l’aide publique parmi les réfugiés originairesd’Asie du Sud-Est et d’Europe orientale dans la zone métropolitaine de Chicagoà la fin des années 80.

L’étude procède en cinq étapes. En toile de fond, elle passe en revue la littératuretraitant des communautés et des organismes à fondement ethnique.Suivent undébat sur l’évolution des associations d’aide mutuelle (MMA) aux Etats-Unis,une brève description des données et des méthodes utilisées, et la présentationdes résultats. Les auteurs concluent par une évaluation de l’incidence de leursconclusions et suggestions sur les travaux de recherche futurs en la matière.

RECONSIDERACIÓN DE LAS COMUNIDADES ÉTNICASY DE LAS ORGANIZACIONES ÉTNICAS:

EL CASO DE LOS REFUGIADOS DE ASIA SUDORIENTALY DE EUROPA DEL ESTE EN CHICAGO

Prosigue un importante debate sobre si los inmigrantes salen beneficiados o node su vínculo con comunidades étnicas y organizaciones étnicas. Por un lado,gran parte de las publicaciones sugiere que la comunidad étnica que,supuestamente, permite la adaptación e integración del inmigrante en realidadfrena su adaptación porque éstos tienen menor acceso a las instituciones quefacilitan su integración (a menudo también por ser minorías). Por otro lado, loscríticos sostienen que la solidaridad étnica pone de relieve los efectos positivos

92 Majka and Mullan

de las comunidades étnicas y de las organizaciones étnicas en las poblaciones deinmigrantes y simplemente ignoran muchas de las consecuencias negativas dela participación de los migrantes en dichos grupos y organizaciones étnicas.

Este artículo tiene por objeto determinar si las comunidades y organizacionesétnicas fomentan la adaptación socioeconómica de los inmigrantes.Concretamente, este artículo analiza el impacto de las organizaciones étnicas enla utilización de la asistencia pública, por parte de los refugiados de AsiaSudoriental y de Europa del Este, en la zona metropolitana de Chicago a finalesde los años ochenta.

El artículo comprende cinco etapas. La primera, como base del estudio global,pasa revista a publicaciones sobre las comunidades étnicas y las organizacionesétnicas. La segunda, examina el papel que desempeñan las asociacionesde asistencia mutua en los Estados Unidos. La tercera, describe brevementelos datos y métodos. La cuarta, sirve para presentar los resultados. Y la última,para evaluar las repercusiones de dichos resultados y hacer sugerencias parafuturos estudios.