Introduction

Movements for national independence for territorial minorities can act as the impetus

behind civil war, intra-state violence and state failure in the existing sovereign state (Sorens

2012, Janoski, Alford, et al. 2005, van Evera 1994). While rarely able to attain the goal of an

independent nation-state with international recognition, these movements are nonetheless

pervasive in the post-War period (Sorens 2012, Fearon and Laitin 2003). Existing research has

established the importance of post-materialism (Inglehart 2008, Inglehart and Baker 2000),

cultural nationalism (Hutchinson 1987, Fearon and Laitin 1996), political disenfranchisement

(Gurr and Moore 1997, Reynal-Querol 2002, Acemoglu and Robinson 2000), and territorial

economic concerns (Sorens 2012) to the development of nationalist sentiment. These variables

have been studied extensively by political scientists and sociologists, but much remains to be

learned regarding the mechanisms through which territorial minorities are rebellious, or

quiescent, in the face of the existing state. This project posits the importance of a heretofore

untested variable – territorial citizen dependence on the form and extent of the sovereign state’s

social benefits programs.

In order to explore the hypothesized relationship, this research treats the case of Puerto

Rico. The existence of a strong, politically salient and influential movement promoting Puerto

Rican national self-determination should be expected (Morgan 2007, Strang 1990) given the

extensive differences between the US sovereign nation and the Puerto Rican dependent territory,

and the literature linking such differences to independence and secession movements (Janoski

1998, Kymlicka 2001, Sorens 2012). The independence movement in Puerto Rico has not

attracted more than 10% of the insular vote since 1956, or 3% since 2000 (Biblioteca del Centro

Estudios Electorales 2012), however. Rather than being a popular group, the Puerto Rican

2

independence movement is perceived as being comprised almost exclusively of affluent,

intellectual fringe elements (Grosfoguel 2003, Quintero Rivera 1976). The project treats the case

of Puerto Rico investigating the predictors of pro-Independence on the island, and beginning to

diagnose the ways in which Puerto Rican political nationalism is rendered impotent. I

quantitatively investigate the nature and extent of the relationship between, on the one hand, the

social rights available to Puerto Ricans as US citizenship, and on the other, citizen sentiment

toward Puerto Rican independence.

Despite the pro-Independence movement’s reputation as a cultural nationalist movement

for wealthy Puerto Ricans, this research finds evidence of very little correlation between

affluence and political stance, although I do find a notable correlation between education and

political stance. Yet, more notably, those Puerto Ricans who rely on means-tests benefits – poor

relief – to which they are entitled only through their US citizenship strenuously want to retain

that citizenship. In the Puerto Rican context, wealth does not encourage rebellion, but the

widespread dependence of the relatively poor on US welfare programs inhibits it. Overall, the

existence of US means-tested welfare benefits, narrowly conceived, works to increase the overall

legitimacy of US sovereignty.

Benefitting from Social Security and Medicare, the US Federal social insurance

programs, does not decrease the likelihood of supporting pro-Independence. Rather, it

significantly and strongly predicts an increase in espousing political separatist sentiment. This

finding underlines the theorized distinctions between means-tested welfare programs that

function as stigmatized public poor relief and universalistic social insurance programs that are

often framed as middle-class entitlements merely administered by the state (Titmuss 2006,

Esping-Andersen 1990). While welfare payments are seen as government charity, and therefore

3

discourage independence from said government, social security income is earned and thus comes

with no clear mandate for recognition or gratitude.

This research tests, and confirms, Piven and Cloward’s (1993) contention that welfare

assists in quelling social unrest and increasing the legitimacy of the state. Building on existing

scholarship on the welfare state (Esping-Andersen 1990, Hicks 1999, Huber and Stephens 2001,

Huber and Stephens 2012), I posit that dependence on US social benefits encourages gratitude

for those benefits at the individual level, and quiescence at the broader social level. The strength

of the relationship between social welfare programs and pro-independence in Puerto Rico is

notable enough to significantly nuance our understanding of state capacity, territorial

populations, and independence movements. Additionally, theories regarding post-materialism,

cultural nationalism and economic status are broadly confirmed in the Puerto Rican context,

while notions of the effects of perceived political deprivation are left unsupported. This research

thus confirms existing theory, and significantly adds to our understanding of welfare and

quiescence, as well as non-elites and Independence.

Quiescence in Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico has been a dependent territory of the United States since 1898, and an

internally autonomous commonwealth since 1947 (Grosfoguel 2003, Thomas 2010). The 3.7

million Puerto Ricans living on the island are almost entirely Spanish speaking, with 9 in 10

Puerto Ricans saying that they do not speak English well (Prensa Asociada 2009), a distinct

difference from the linguistic situation on the mainland, where over 92% of residents speak

English either natively, very well, or well (Shin and Kominski 2010). Roman Catholics represent

85% of the Puerto Rican population, while the plurality of mainland Americans identify as

Protestants (Central Intelligence Agency 2012). Culturally, Puerto Rico has much in common

4

with the nations of Latin America and other former Spanish colonies, while the fifty US states

are more closely related to other former British colonies and the UK (Inglehart 2006).

The rights of US citizenship in Puerto Rico are limited – especially in the context of

developed nations (Morrissey 2006). As Esping-Andersen (1990) argues, US social benefits are

notably parsimonious in comparison to those of other wealthy nations, and citizens of dependent

territories are only selectively incorporated into those benefits (Morrissey 2006). Food Stamps

are limited to the block grant allocated to the Puerto Rican territorial government, meaning

benefits are not able to respond quickly to changes in the macro-economy (Pantojas 1999). In the

case of the primary source of cash benefits to families – TANF – the Federal matching rate for

Puerto Rico is 75%, rather than the rate based on per capita income that is used for the state

governments, meaning that TANF payments in Puerto Rico are considerably lower than

anywhere in the US (US Social Security Administration 2012).

Puerto Ricans are also disproportionately more likely than mainland citizens to be

ineligible for Social Security pensions, as high rates of unemployment and informal employment

in the insular economy render pay-in impossible (Morrissey 2006). This implies that Puerto

Ricans are more likely than mainland citizens to depend on means-tested welfare programs than

to participate in less stigmatized social insurance programs, especially in old age. This

distinction is especially important in terms of the island’s future political status – while Social

Security recipients may reside anywhere in the world and still receive benefits accrued during

their working years, implying that current recipients would continue to collect benefits were

Puerto Rico to achieve independence, while means-tested welfare recipients must continuously

live in US territory.

5

In keeping with these restricted levels of insular social rights, the median US citizen

living in Puerto Rico has an income that is only 37% that of her counterpart on the mainland,

with the median income in Puerto Rico in 2010 at $18,862, compared to $50,046 in the US states

(US Census Bureau 2011a, Collazo, Ryan and Bauman 2010). Rates of poverty are 45%,

approximately triple those on the mainland (US Census Bureau 2011b) – and education and

healthcare services are far beneath standards in the metropole (Rivera-Batiz and Santiago 1996,

Safa 2011). Since 1984, the average insular unemployment rate has been 14%, a figure that

doubled the national average of 6.2% (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2013). The GINI coefficient

measuring income inequality is higher in Puerto Rico than in any other part of the United States

and, at 0.532, is a figure more reminiscent of the developing world than the developed (US

Census Bureau 2011a).

Puerto Rico is not only far less affluent than the US as a whole, it is also more vulnerable

to fluctuations in the macro-economic business cycle. Over the last thirty years, the average

unemployment rate on the island has doubled the US average, but the standard deviation of that

unemployment rate has also been twice as large (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2013). Similarly,

figures on median income and poverty rates show comparatively rapid rates of change that dwarf

those on the mainland. Given that the role of the welfare state is to minimize the exposure of

citizens to the vagaries of the capitalist market (Hicks 1999), Puerto Rico’s vulnerability is

especially relevant.

Puerto Rico represents an excellent case study in quiescence. Though, on the surface,

conditions would seem excellent for the formation of strong and popular calls for national

independence, this unrest is almost non-existent. Separated by legal status, language, culture,

6

ethnicity, religion and history from the sovereign state, their relative acquiescence to what

amounts to imperial rule presents, rather, something of a puzzle.

Theorized Contributions to pro-Independence and Separatism

In the literature concerning nationalist movements, theories as to the origins of their

support abound. These may, broadly, be summarized as falling within the traditions of post-

materialism, cultural nationalism, political deprivation and territorial economic status. I

summarize the existing literature in these research veins before positing the importance of

welfare rights as important in shaping the call for independence by territorial populations.

Post-Materialism

Using extensive data from the World Values Survey, Inglehart (1999; 2008) argues that

the politics of secession and self-rule are the politics of the relatively privileged – societies in

which crime, poverty and disease are problematic prioritize freedom from these ills over self-

realization. Nationalist self-determination is, in this view, largely the prerogative of those who

are accustomed to some minimal degree of physical and material security. Inglehart (1999, 2008)

therefore posits that citizens who live in regions that lack the security or affluence of the

developed world will be more likely to shy away from the political experiment of nation change,

given that some minimum criteria for their quality of life has been met. Inglehart (1999, 2008)

does not disagree with classic revolutionary theory in its findings that structure matters or that

events external to the state dictate internal power windows (Skocpol 1979, Goldstone 1991, Tilly

1975), but rather makes a point about relative prosperity in a capitalist society. More security

predicts a greater inclination towards self-determination, ceteris paribus.

Inglehart’s (1999, 2008) thesis has been empirically explored in its implications for

governance. Research has found strong correlations between post-materialism and support for

7

generous social democratic welfare policies (Erickson and Laycock 2002), participation in

environmental movements (Paloniemi and Vainio 2011), and voter confidence in developing

democracies (Aydin and Cenker 2012). Post-materialist inclinations have been posited as

contributing to stronger secession movements in more relatively affluent Western European

regions (Deckard 2014, Studlar and McAllister 1988).

Cultural Nationalism

Leerssen writes:

[Cultural nationalists] advance the right to national self-determination, cultural survival

and cultural self-expression, as a self-evident and ethically autonomous principle,

alongside (not derived from) equality, justice and political stability. If anything,

nationalism sees the state as a means to an end (the state should embody its constituent

nationality, and derives its right to exist in part from that function)” (2006, 560).

The importance of cultural nationalism as an ipso facto good appears not only in pro-

Independence literature from Africa (Derrick 2008) and Asia (Christie 1997), but that of modern-

day secession movements (Sorens 2012, Breuilly 1993). The theme is so prevalent in the

separatist discourse that the presence of a unique culture from which nationalist claims can be

made is considered vital to the creation of a salient nationalist movement (Sorens 2012, Breuilly

1993).

Fearon and Laitin’s (2003, 1996) work makes an interesting argument, however, that

cultural and ethnic nationalism is constructed only when conflict is structurally predicted. Thus,

while nationalist movements may appear to relate to deep swellings of cultural nationalism

among the population, it may also be that there are more traditionally rational elements behind

movement salience. Although there is general agreement that ethnicity is socially constructed,

8

the idea that those who are more aware of and moved by the idea of national self-determination

should be drawn to pro-Independence movements must be considered.

Political Deprivation

Political deprivation is, perhaps, the reasoning behind pro-independence with which US

readers are most familiar. The war cry of the American revolution was, famously, “No taxation

without representation,” a complaint alluding to the original colonies’ disenfranchisement from

the democratic mechanisms of the British imperial state. Using game theory, Acemoglu and

Robinson (2000) find that democratic representation reduces the risk of rebellion, a finding

generally mirrored in the secession literature (Sorens 2012). Essentially, the limiting of political

influence may be considered part of an overall repression of minority populations, which

strengthens their ability to mobilize against the state (Gurr and Moore 1997). Because of these

relationships, an important variable in the prediction of the existence of a salient movement for

pro-Independence is the degree of political autonomy and self-determination given to a territory,

with greater autonomy and participation being predictive of reduced separatist action (Sorens

2012). This issue is specifically contentious in Puerto Rico. As citizens, Puerto Ricans have full

participatory rights when they are residents of a US state, but the island has no vote in congress,

say in the election of the president, or ability to effect change at the national level. The degree to

which individual Puerto Ricans are concerned with political disenfranchisement, therefore,

should be relevant in determining their political stance.

Territorial Economic Status

Secessionist and pro-independence movement popularity may be a function of rational

choice among territorial populations (Sorens 2008, Sorens 2012). In this view, those who feel the

territory has significant economic interests apart from the existing sovereign state are those most

9

likely to support secession and, thus, when these beliefs are common, there will be significant

support for Independence or secession. This work lines up with research on decolonization, in

which colonial citizens believe their economic positions will benefit from the ejection of a

foreign power that extracts surplus, and so move to make independence a reality (Wallerstein

2004). This argument also falls in line with theories of internal colonialism – in which territorial

elites seek independence in order to retain a greater proportion of the region’s surplus (Stone

1979). In the Puerto Rican case, questions of the insular economy are consistently cited in

independence debates (Grosfoguel 2003, Safa 2011), and so individuals’ perceptions of the

issue’s importance may drive opinion on political status.

Welfare and Quiescence – A New Approach to Understanding Nationalism

Piven and Cloward (1993) make an argument for the quiescent power of social benefits

programs. Historically, they find, states seek to pacify their most fractious groups through the

extension of social rights, shoring up state legitimacy in the face of threats of rebellion. These

findings are not out of line with other scholars of the welfare state, who argue that social welfare

programs maximize the legitimacy of the state-favored capitalist system while minimizing social

instability (Esping-Andersen 1990, Leibfried and Zürn 2005, Pierson 1998) – or that of

democratization literature, who argue that populist redistribution costs elites and the middle

classes a small fraction of what they would stand to lose in a complete revolutionary upheaval

(Acemoglu and Robinson 2000). The argument is also not at odds with Inglehart’s (2008) post-

materialist view – while the secure and affluent may agitate for increased self-determination, the

poor may rely on the state’s largesse to eke out a living, making that state more legitimate in the

eyes of its direct beneficiaries.

10

In the US, means-tested welfare plans like Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF),

Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Medicaid fall under the rubric of

social rights programs (Lister 2003). Ultimately, these welfare systems bring the most vulnerable

members of the polity into the democratic, capitalist fold. Puerto Rican territorial identification

as a minority status was actively considered when determining the extent of incorporation into

the larger metropolitan welfare regime (Morrissey 2006), and the development of social welfare

policies on the island has been actively influenced by the need to strategically mollify colonial

populations (Grosfoguel 2003, MacPherson 2003).

In the specifically Puerto Rican context, Grosfoguel (2003:67) identifies among the four

benefits enjoyed by modern Puerto Ricans the “annual transfers of billions of dollars… from the

metropolitan state to the modern colony (for example, food stamps, health, education, and

unemployment benefits).” These are economic benefits that disproportionately affect lower and

working class Puerto Ricans. Grosfoguel (2003) argues that only Puerto Ricans for whom these

benefits are irrelevant can afford to seek and independent Puerto Rican state and, thus, pro-

independence is a function of considerable privilege. Additionally, wealthy Puerto Ricans, as the

insular elite, may be in a position to benefit from the removal of welfare protections, as the price

of unskilled labor would presumably decrease to subsistence level (Grosfoguel 2003).

In this view, the benefits of social insurance programs maintained by the US government

must be considered apart from those of means-tested welfare programs. Although both represent

facets of the welfare state broadly conceived, social insurance programs are not necessarily

contrary to the interests of business owners or wealthy interests as they increase security for

workers over the life course (Quadagno 1984), while means-tested welfare makes inter-class

transfers that increase security among the fully or partially decommodified (Esping-Andersen

11

1990). There is a perception that Social Security and Medicare programs represent a dispersal of

social insurance funds rather than a function of government largesse (Stuber 2006), which may

work to change the way the two sets of recipients view the sovereign state. Additionally, while

the collection of means-tested welfare benefits is greatly stigmatized, there is a lack of stigma

associated with benefitting from universal Social Security funds and Medicare (Stuber 2006,

Esping-Andersen 1990, Titmuss 2006).

Given the welfare and quiescence literature, we expect to find that an increase in welfare

rights should, at least in theory, be equated with an increase in overall state power and

legitimacy. Although the implications of the quiescent power of welfare policy have never been

explored in the specific context of independence movements, this research investigates this

dynamic by treating the relationship between welfare and the push for independence from the

state, controlling for other posited variables and making a distinction between universal and

means-tested programs.

Research Questions

I first question the ability of existing theory to account for the relative lack of nationalist

sentiment in Puerto Rico. How does respondent age, education and income affect the likelihood

of espousing pro-Independence? How does the appearance of themes of cultural nationalism or

territorial economic status in respondents’ discourse work to predict the likelihood of espousing

pro-Independence? I then ask how the receipt of social benefits adds to models predicted by

existing research.

Hypotheses

Post-materialist theory (Inglehart 2008) predicts that, as respondents age, they will be

more likely to seek out security through continued affiliation with the existing sovereign state.

12

Additionally, in this view, more educated and affluent respondents will be more likely to pursue

the identity politics of independence.

H1 – I hypothesize that increased education and increased affluence will correlate with

increased pro-Independence. Increased age will, conversely, predict reduced pro-Independence.

Fearon and Laitin (1996, 2003) predict that an increase in cultural nationalist framing will

predict an increase in the likelihood of pro-Independence, while Acemoglu and Robinson (2000)

argue that democratic political representation equated with less rebelliousness. Sorens (2012)

argues that, when secession is to the economic benefit of the territorial population, the population

will seek to separate from the existing state, and Wallerstein (2004) argues that, among territorial

populations, sovereign states function largely to extract surplus and thus weaken the economy.

H2 – In Puerto Rico, respondents using culturally nationalistic rationales for their political

stance will be more likely to seek Independence for the island, as will those using the logic of

political deprivation. Those who speak of the state of the economy are more likely to embrace

pro-Independence.

The extensive literature on welfare and quiescence predicts that a more generous welfare

state garners legitimacy from the national population (Esping-Andersen 1990, Leibfried and

Zürn 2005, Pierson 1998, Piven and Cloward 1993). Specifically, those who benefit from means-

tested welfare programs should accept the authority of that state, in principle, and be less likely

to seek independence. Those who benefit from social insurance programs, conversely, may not

have an explicit interest in maintaining the power of the existing state. These hypotheses, which

join the welfare and quiescence literature to the nationalism and secession literatures, are the

13

central hypotheses of this research, in that they join the welfare and quiescence literature to the

nationalism literature.

H3 – I hypothesize that Puerto Ricans that utilize US means-tested social welfare programs will

be more supportive of US sovereignty and less likely to espouse pro-Independence.

H4 –I hypothesize that Puerto Ricans who receive Social Security will not be significantly more

or less likely to support pro-Independence.

Methodology

In order to pursue the research questions, I conducted a representative survey of island

Puerto Ricans. There was no compensation for participation. Using Google AdWords and

Facebook Ads, survey advertisements were shown over 1,000,000 times to users accessing the

internet from Puerto Rican IP addresses. Of the 1,380,144 ad impressions, 3,233 people clicked

onto the survey’s introduction page, 555 actually began the survey and 402 completed it. Surveys

were run in May and June of 2013 and all recruitment and survey materials were Spanish

language. Although about 10% of Puerto Ricans on the island report being able to speak English

well (Prensa Asociada 2009), I attempted to run the same recruitment ads and surveys in English

– but received only 13 responses. Because of this extremely low number of responses, only

Spanish language results are reported.

Surveys requested demographic data regarding the respondent – including age, household

income, educational background, occupation, racial heritage, and residential history. Surveys

asked about identity – eg Puerto Rican or US (Estadounidense) – and the social benefits used by

the respondent, the respondents’ close friends and relatives, and “many Puerto Ricans.”

Respondents were also asked whether their employer was a US based organization or an insular

concern, as well as where and for whether and for what length of time the respondent maintained

14

US mainland residency. Finally, respondents were asked for their political preference for the

island – Statehood, continued Commonwealth status (ELA), or Independence.

In order to fully investigate the research question, this project uses both content analysis

of close-ended questions and qualitative analysis of open-ended questions. Bivariate analysis

leads to the uncovering of many provocative patterns, which I pursue using bivariate logistic

regression procedures (Bergtold, Yeager and Featherstone 2011). Equally, the words of Puerto

Ricans speak to patterns of belief that elucidate the correlation between welfare dependency and

independence and are important in understanding the complex relationships investigated by the

research questions.

Data Collection

Dependent Variable

Support for Puerto Rican Independence

Survey findings were broadly reflective of current political leanings as demonstrated in

recent Puerto Rican plebiscites, though the two ends of the spectrum – statehood and

independence – were more represented than the status quo. In the most recent ballot, held in

2012, approximately 54% of Puerto Rican voters wanted a change is status. Of those answering

the next question – that of which status they would prefer, barring the status quo – 45% preferred

statehood and 4% independence (Comision Estatal de Elecciones de Puerto Rico 2012). Rather

than using this staggered method of preferences, I presented respondents with the three choices

in a single question and received the following distribution of responses: Independence – 12%,

Statehood – 61%, and ELA – 27%. This distribution may be indicative of some level of self-

selection for inclusion among respondents with extreme political leanings, as the continuation of

15

the ELA signifies the center of the Puerto Rican political spectrum. This bias, however, does not

influence the understanding of relationships between social rights and political leanings that we

gain from the data – rather it allows us to oversample the extremes in which we are most

interested.

Independent Variable

Use of Social Benefit Programs

As government usage statistics predict, respondents reported extensive usage of Social

Benefits programs. There was significant overlap between demographic characteristics such as

gender and the types of programs used by an individual respondent depended largely on answers

to various demographic questions, which I control for in regressions. Table 1 summarizes the

distribution of social program usage by respondents, by program type.

<Table 1 about here>

The use of Food Stamps is under-represented in survey results. Most sources estimate

that approximately 30% of Puerto Ricans use Food Stamps (Food and Nutrition Service 2010),

but only 22% of respondents report doing so. This is probably due to the fact that the survey was

given on an internet platform without compensation, meaning that vast majority of respondents

would have required unlimited access to the internet, and thus under-sampling the lowest-income

households.

Using a principal component extraction method factor analysis procedure on the three

means-tested welfare programs, I found that positive responses regarding their usage loaded on a

single factor – as could be expected theoretically. Table 2 presents the results of the factor

analysis of a means-tested welfare variable.

<Table 2 about here>

16

Informed by these results, I aggregated a single variable to measure use of means-tested welfare

programs. The distribution of this variable is presented in Table 3.

<Table 3 about here>

Social Security and Medicare usage was measured with a single question asking whether

the respondent made use of these two old-age programs. Significant literature makes the

distinction between universal social insurance programs like Social Security and Medicare and

means-tested ones like TANF, Food Stamps and Medicaid (Stuber 2006, Esping-Andersen 1990,

Titmuss 2006), with usage of the former generally not being stigmatized, and the latter being cast

as “poor relief” and thus being a source of degradation for the recipient. We maintain means-

tested welfare usage and social insurance program usage as discrete variables. Social Security

and Medicare usage is a single dummy variable, with 21% of respondents having affirmative

responses.

Control Variables

Level of Affluence

Respondents reported household incomes that were statistically indistinguishable from

the US Census reported distribution of Puerto Rican household incomes (US Census Bureau

2011a). Ten respondents did not complete the household income question. The modal response

was $0-$10,000 per year, with 31% of respondents choosing this income category. Nearly 80%

of respondents had incomes under $50,000 and 4.3% had incomes over $100,000. Household

income is positively and significantly correlated with reported respondent education level and

age, as we would expect from the significant sociological literature on predictors of income

(Wright 1978). The use of this control allows the research to estimate the effect of an important

portion of post-materialist theories, advanced by Inglehart (1999, 2008).

17

Educational Attainment

Respondents’ educational attainment and level of affluence were highly correlated, which

is to be expected given the sociological literature on predictors of income (Wright 1978). I

control for educational attainment separately however, to address Grosfoguel’s (2003) and

Quintero Rivera’s (1976) contention that pro-Independence belongs largely to the intelligentsia

and to address the educational component of Inglehart’s (2008) post-materialist theory. I

measured educational attainment is years of education, a continuous variable, and specified in

the question that a high school degree constituted 12 years of education and a college degree 16.

The mean respondent had 15.31 years of schooling, with 17.3% having completed 12 years and

26.3% having completed 16.

Respondents skew significantly more educated than census results report for the Puerto

Rican population. While, in 2000, 19% of Puerto Ricans had a bachelor’s degree, 60.5% of

survey respondents reported having completed 16 years of schooling, which would imply a BA.i

Although one would expect a degree of bias towards more educated respondents from a survey

calling for political opinions that requires internet access, this bias required data to be weighted

for respondent educational attainment.ii

Age

I control for age to estimate the effect of generation on political stance. There are some

generational trends within Inglehart’s (1999, 2008) post-materialism thesis – with the young

being systematically more secure and thus more driven towards nationalist identity politics –

making a generational control appropriate. The mean age of respondents was 42.73, with a

standard deviation of 14.37 years – statistically indistinguishable from the insular population

over the age of 18.

18

Cultural Nationalism

In order to estimate the influence of cultural nationalism in predicting pro-Independence,

hypothesized to be significantly powerful by Fearon and Laitin (2003), among others, I control

for the presence of cultural nationalism in respondents’ discourses regarding political stances.

Thirty-five, or approximately 10% of respondents, when asked “Tell us more about your political

preference. Why do you feel like that?” gave responses that were coded positively for cultural

nationalism. Any response that explained that Puerto Rican, Latino or Hispanic culture is

worthwhile, unique, and must be preserved, or that US culture was superior, was coded as

containing this theme.

Among respondents citing culture as critical to the formation of their political opinions,

Mia’s response is typical.iii

Mia believes that a continuation of the ELA status would be best,

because “As a culture we need to have a cultural identity that distinguishes us and we can create

our own days, which can be helped by the United States.” Affluent small business owner Camila

gives another, more forceful response that is quite typical of pro-Independence respondents

citing culture – “Because I am not, nor will I ever be, North American. I don’t identify like that

and, for me, it is a foreign culture.” Many of the cultural nationalism set of responses spoke of an

explicit trade-off between culture and more seemingly practical concerns. Low-income Luís

wishes to maintain the ELA in order to “maintain our culture, although we depend on the United

States.”

Political Deprivation

Perceptions of political deprivation have been posited to be influential in the creation of

salient movements for independence, secession, and national self-determination (Acemoglu and

Robinson 2000, Gurr and Moore 1997). A total of 83 respondents, 23% of respondents, when

19

asked “Tell us more about your political preference. Why do you feel like that?” gave responses

that were coded positively for political deprivation. Responses that spoke of the need to enjoy a

full spectrum of political rights, the insufficiency of current citizenship rights, or the

disenfranchisement associated with the colonial condition were coded as containing “political

deprivation” themes.

Of responses that were considered to be indicative of a concern for political

disenfranchisement, Gabriela’s is typical. Gabriela is a retired 68 year old entrepreneur with a

master’s degree, and she writes “The only thing a rational person can ask for is his/her liberty.”

Similarly, Sebastián, a 42 year old sales representative who makes between $10,000 and $20,000

per year, writes “I believe that every country has the right to choose its own political way,

according to its own identity and needs.” Less philosophically, middle class Paola writes “It is

time to stop being second-class citizens, we must reclaim all of our civil rights and our right to

vote.”

Territorial Economic Status

Because of the hypothesized importance of the territorial populations’ perceptions of the

political status that will most benefit the territorial economy (Sorens 2008), I control for

respondent economic concern. Approximately 20% of respondents, or 70 respondents, when

asked “Tell us more about your political preference. Why do you feel like that?” gave responses

that were coded as pertaining to territorial economic status. Responses that argued that Puerto

Rico’s economy could not be sustained without the US – or that the economy would be far better

were insular resources not exploited by US imperial interests – were given this code.

Angél, a working class Puerto Rican, gave an example of a relatively typical response

coded for territorial economic status. “The United States takes our resources, does not leave us

20

free to do business on our terms with other countries, and creates an economic crisis,” he writes.

Similarly, Sofia writes “If we were free, we would be able to take down the barriers that put

brakes on our economic and real progress with one Puerto Rico, for Puerto Rico, and not for

those who are in power.” On the other side of the economic status debate, but equally coded for

the presence of the insular economic theme, Valeria said “[Statehood] is the only way to better

the life conditions [in Puerto Rico].”

Data Analysis

Table 4 presents the results of two logistic regression procedures on the dependent

variable – pro-Independence. As the presentation is of results of a logistic regression, the table

includes the exponentiated value of each variable’s b-value in each model. The exponentiated-b

may be interpreted as the change in the likelihood of the dependent variable – in this case, pro-

Independence – that can be predicted given a change in the independent variable in question. For

example, a variable’s exponentiated b-value of 1.1 implies that its presence predicts a 10%

increase in the likelihood of the appearance of a hypothetical dependent variable, while a

variable’s exponentiated b-value of 0.9 represents a 10% decrease in the presence of that

variable.

Data analysis show that education is a significant predictor of pro-Independence, with

each year of education increasing the likelihood of desiring independence by 18.3% before

welfare usage is included in the model, and 17.6% in the full model. Age also has a significant

relationship with pro-Independence with older people being significantly less likely to support

pro-Independence – a 5% reduction in likelihood for each year of respondent age, with a

significance of ρ<0.05. Annual Income was not significantly related to pro-Independence in

either model. In the full model, the presence of cultural nationalist themes in a respondent’s

21

political reasoning predicted a 526% increase in the likelihood of pro-Independence, but neither

the presence of territorial economic status nor that of political deprivation in respondents’

political reasoning significantly predict pro-independence stance.

Table 4 also shows that, after controlling for above variables, posited to be salient in the

existing literature, means-tested welfare recipients are 29.8% as likely as non-recipients to

support insular independence – implying a reduction of 70.2% in the likelihood of support for

pro-Independence. The use of each additional means-tested welfare program predicts an

additional 70.2% reduction in the likelihood of espousing pro-Independence – so the use of two

means-tested welfare programs result in a 91.12% decrease in the likelihood of identifying with

an independent Puerto Rico. Conversely, the use of Social Security and Medicare has a positive

relationship with pro-Independence – with the use of Social Security benefits associated with a

262.8% increase in the likelihood of espousing pro-Independence.

<Table 4 about here>

Social Security and Medicare use is associated with an increase in pro-independence, and

these respondents were significantly older than their non-recipient counterparts, with a mean

difference of 10.92 years (F=39.74). Because age had a diminishing effect on the likelihood of

espousing pro-Independence, the net effect of Social Security and age was an average 57.35%

increase in pro-Independence. Thus, even given the diminishing effect of advanced age, social

insurance participation has a positive effect on pro-Independence. I will explore the possible

causes of this positive effect in the Discussion Section.

Discussion

The results of my analysis were clear and significant in both their confirmation of

existing theory regarding pro-Independence and separatism, and in the importance of new

22

variables to. In the full model, older Puerto Ricans are less likely to support independence, while

the more educated are more likely to espouse pro-Independence. My data is unable to establish

the existence of a significant relationship between affluence and pro-Independence. These results

either confirm or, in the case of affluence, do not refute, H1.

The cultural nationalism portion of H2 was confirmed in this research. The use of a

cultural nationalism frame or an economic status frame was significantly related to increased

likelihood of pro-Independence, per existing theory. Consistently, Puerto Ricans who spoke of

the importance of culture wanted a Puerto Rican sovereign state. Contrary to H2, however, the

presence of a political deprivation discourse in respondents’ status reasoning was not

significantly related to pro-independence. Concerns for territorial economic status were not

significantly related to pro-Independence either, findings which failed to confirm H2 as well.

Data analysis illuminated a number of relationships between social rights and pro-Independence

in Puerto Rico. Given findings that show decreased pro-Independence among recipients of US

Federal means-tested social entitlement programs, we can posit that the use of US social benefits

strengthens the connection of Puerto Rican citizens to the US sovereign state. It would appear

that benefitting from federal means-tested welfare programs places affected Puerto Ricans in a

position of gratitude for the assistance, in the form of poor relief, from the US government – and

therefore associate US sovereignty with a measure of security for their lifestyles. These findings

are in line with the welfare state literature (Esping-Andersen 1990, Leibfried and Zürn 2005,

Pierson 1998, Piven and Cloward 1993), and confirm the first portion of H3 – recipients of

means-tested welfare programs are less likely to be pro-independence than comparable

respondents who do not receive means-tested welfare benefits.

23

Unlike means-tested welfare programs, the use of the Social Security and Medicare

programs does not decrease pro-Independence, but rather increases it – despite the prediction of

H4 that Social Security usage would have no significant effect on pro-Independence. The fact

that use of Social Security income appears to embolden pro-Independence, controlling for age,

may be influenced by widespread belief on the island that, even were independence to occur,

Social Security and Medicare benefits would remain payable to those accruing them during their

working lives (Partido Independentista Puertoriqueno 2014). The reasoning behind this belief

appears solid – many US retirees live outside of the US and collect their benefits without

difficulty, there is no reason to believe that those living in an independent Puerto Rico would be

treated differently. The elderly, and other Social Security recipients, are therefore alone in their

position as payees of a US welfare program that would retain benefits, irrespective of Puerto

Rico’s future. In many ways, Social Security recipients are free to pursue identity politics with

even more freedom than the affluent, as their income is divorced from concerns of both

citizenship and market.

Conclusion

This research interrogates the socio-political dynamics behind Puerto Rican pro-

Independence, assessing the importance of social welfare programs in the development of

separatist nationalist sentiment. Using survey methods, I demonstrate a negative relationship

between use of means-tested welfare benefits and Independentismo – implying that the minimal

level of material well-being guaranteed by US citizenship garners loyalty from the colonial

population who benefit from it. Conversely, I find strong evidence that receipt of non-

stigmatized, universal social insurance funds empower citizens to pursue more identity-driven

states.

24

The perception of the Puerto Rican independence movement as an affectation of the

upper class is not collaborated by these data (Grosfoguel 2003, Quintero Rivera 1976) – though

pro-Independence respondents were better educated and older. This research finds that there is

significant support for independence among some of the poorest Puerto Ricans – but that those

dependent on Federal government welfare benefits that they are entitled to only as a function of

their US citizenship maintain a loyalty to the US state. This finding significantly contributes to

the existing literature regarding non-elites and Independence movements.

The implications of this research are extensive and provocative. Given the ways in which

nationalism, ethnic conflict and secessionism are increasingly disruptive of the geo-political

status quo, understanding the role of the welfare state in engendering loyalty to the sovereign

state is an important new line of research. Concurrent moves towards welfare retrenchment in the

interests of austerity mandate a more developed and nuanced awareness of the connections

between welfare provision and state legitimacy, a need that this research begins to fill. Future

research may use the findings of this study to explore the differences between means-tested

welfare and universal programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, in predicting attitudes

towards the sovereign state and the prevalent of social unrest, differences that are currently

entirely unexplored. The findings of this research – that means-tested social welfare programs, in

addition to their manifest anti-poverty functions, also perform significant, empirically-

demonstrable, state-legitimizing functions – are important and widely informative.

25

References

Acemoglu, D., and James R. 2000. "Inequality, Growth and Development: Democratization or

Repression?" European Economic Review 44: 683-193.

Aydin, A., and Cenker, C. 2012. "Public Confidence in Government: Empirical Implications

from a Developing Democracy." International Political Science Review 33, 2: 230-250.

Bergtold, J., Yeager, E., and Featherstone, A. 2011. Sample Size and Robustness of Inferences

from Logistic Regression in the Presence of Nonlinearity and Multicollinearity. Conference

Paper, Pittsburgh, PA: Agricultural & Applied Economics Association.

Biblioteca del Centro Estudios Electorales. 2012. Comisión estatal de elecciones de Puerto Rico.

3 November 2012. http://www.ceepur.org/es-pr/Paginas/default.aspx (accessed 3 November

2012).

Breuilly, J. 1993. Nationalism and the State. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. Economy at a Glance - Puerto Rico. August 2013.

http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.pr.htm (accessed 10 November 2013).

Central Intelligence Agency. 2012. World Factbook. 16 October 2012.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rq.html (accessed 21

October 2012).

Christie, C. 1997. A Modern History of Southeast Asia: Decolonization, Nationalism and

Separatism. London, UK: I.B. Taurus & Co, Ltd.

Collazo, S., Ryan, C., and Bauman, K. 2010. Profile of the Puerto Rican Population in the

United States and Puerto Rico: 2008. Census Bureau Report, Washington DC: US Census

Bureau.

26

Comisión Estatal de Elecciones de Puerto Rico. 2012. Condición Política Territorial Actual. San

Juan, PR: Comisión Estatal de Elecciones de Puerto Rico.

Deckard, N. 2014. Citizenship and Secession: Social Rights and Western European State

Legitimacy. Conference Paper, San Francisco, CA: American Sociological Association.

Derrick, J. 2008. Africa's Agitators: Militant Anti-Colonialism in Africa and the West, 1918-

1939. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Erickson, L., and Laycock, D. 2002. "Post-Materialism Versus the Welfare State?: Opinion

among English Canadian Social Democrats." Party Politics 8: 301.

Esping-Andersen, G. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Fearon, J., and Laitin, D. 2003. "Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War." American Political

Science Review 97, 1: 75-90.

Fearon, J., and Laitin, D. 1996. "Explaining Interethnic Cooperation." American Political

Science Review 90, 4: 715-735.

Food and Nutrition Service. 2010. Implementing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in

Puerto Rico. A Feasibility Study, Alexandria, VA: US Department of Agriculture.

Goldstone, J. A. 1991. Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press.

Grosfoguel, R. 2003. Colonial Subjects: Puerto Ricans in a Global Perspective. Berkeley,

California: University of California Press.

Gurr, T., and Moore, W. 1997. "Ethnopolitical Rebellion: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the

1980s with Risk Assessments for the 1990s." American Journal of Political Science 41, 4:

1079-1103.

27

Hicks, A. 1999. Social Democracy and Welfare Capitalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University

Press.

Huber, E., and Stephens, J. 2001. Development and Crisis of the Welfare State: Parties and

Policies in Global Markets. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Huber, E., and Stephens, J. 2012. Democracy and the Left: Social Policy and Inequality in Latin

America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hutchinson, J. 1987. The Dynamics of Cultural Nationalism. London: Allen and Unwin.

Inglehart, R. 2008. "Changing Values among Western Publics from 1970 to 2006." West

European Politics 31, 1-2: 130-146.

—. 2006. "Inglehart-Welzel Cultural Map of the World ." World Values Survey.

Inglehart, R., and Baker, W. 2000. "Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of

Traditional Values." American Sociological Review 65, 1: 19.

Janoski, T. 1998. Citizenship and Civil Society: A Framework of Rights and Obligations in

Liberal, Traditional, and Social Democratic Regimes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Janoski, T., Alford, R., Hicks, A., and Schwartz, M. 2005. The Handbook of Political Sociology.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kymlicka, W. 2001. Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multi-Culturalism, and Citizenship.

Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press.

Leerssen, J. 2006. "Nationalism and the Cultivation of Culture." Nations and Nationalism 12, 4:

559-579.

Leibfried, S., and Zürn, M. Transformations of the State? Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2005.

28

Lister, R. Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives. New York: NYU Press, 2003.

MacPherson, A. 2003. "Citizens vs. Clients: Working Women and Colonial Reform in Puerto

Rico and Belize, 1932-45." Journal of Latin American Studies 35, 2: 279-310.

Morgan, R. 2007. "On Political Institutions and Social Movement Dynamics: The Case od the

United Nations and the Global Indigenous Movement." International Political Science

Review 28, 3: 273-292.

Morrissey, M. 2006. "The Making of a Colonial Welfare State: US Social Insurance and Public

Assistance in Puerto Rico." Latin American Perspectives 33, 1: 23-41.

Paloniemi, R., and Vainio, A. 2011. "Why Do Young People Participate in Environmental

Political Action?" Environmental Values 20, 1: 397-416.

Pantojas, E. 1999. "Los Estudios Economicos sobre Puerto Rico: Una Evaluacion Critica."

Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico: 11-24.

Partido Independentista Puertoriqueno. 2014. Lo Que Debes Saber Sobre La Independencia.

Documento, San Juan, PR: Secretaria de Comunicacion y Prensa, PIP.

Pierson, P. 1998. "Irresistible Forces, Immovable Objects: Post-Industrial Welfare States

Confront Permanent Austerity." Journal of European Public Policy 5, 4: 539-560.

Piven, F.F., and Cloward, R. 1993. Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare. New

York: Random House.

Prensa Asociada. 2009. "¿Se discrimina al usar el inglés en algunos tribunales de Puerto Rico?"

Daily News - Latino, February 29, 2009.

Quadagno, J. 1984. "Welfare capitalism and the Social Security Act of 1935." American

Sociological Review 49, 5: 632-647.

29

Quintero Rivera, A. 1976. Conflictos de Clase y Politica en Puerto Rico. San Juan, PR:

Ediciones Huracan.

Reynal-Querol, M. 2002. "Ethnicity, Political Systems, and Civil Wars." The Journal of Conflict

Resolution 46, 1: 29-54.

Rivera-Batiz, F., and Santiago, C. 1996. Island Paradox: Puerto Rico in the 1990s. New York:

Russell Sage Foundation.

Safa, H. 2011. "The Transformation of Puerto Rico: The Impact of Modernization Ideology."

Transforming Ideology: 46-49.

Shin, H., and Kominski, R. 2010. Language Use in the United States: 2007. American

Community Survey Report, Washington DC: US Census Bureau.

Skocpol, T. 1979. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and

China. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sorens, J. 2008. "Regionalists against Secession: The Political Economy of Territory in

Advanced Democracies." Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 14, 3: 325-360.

—. 2012. Secessionism: Identity, Interest, and Strategy. Montreal, Quebec: McGill-Queen's

University Press.

Stone, J. 1979. "Introduction: Internal Colonialism in Comparative Perspective." Ethnic and

Racial Studies 2, 3: 255-259.

Strang, D. 1990. "From Dependency to Sovereignty: An Event History Analysis of

Decolonization 1870-1987." American Sociological Review 55, 6: 846-860.

Stuber, J., and Schlesinger, M. 2006. "Sources of Stigma for Means-Tested Government

Programs." Social Science & Medicine 63, 4: 933-945.

30

Studlar, D., and McAllister, I. 1988. "Nationalism in Scotland and Wales: A Post‐Industrial

Phenomenon?" Ethnic and Racial Studies 11, 1: 48-62.

Thomas, L. 2010. Puerto Rican Citizen: History and Political Identity in Twentieth-Century New

York City. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Tilly, C., Tilly, L., and Tilly, R. 1975. The Rebellious Century: 1830-1930. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Titmuss, R. 2006. "Universalism versus Selection." In The Welfare State Reader, by Christopher

Pierson and Francis Castles, 40-48. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

US Census Bureau. 2011a. Household Income for States: 2009 and 2010. American Community

Survey Briefs, Washington DC: US Census Bureau.

US Census Bureau. 2011b. Poverty: 2009 and 2010. American Community Survey Briefs,

Washington DC: US Census Bureau.

US Social Security Administration. 2012. OSADI Beneficiaries by State and County.

www.ssa.gov (accessed October 10, 2013).

—. 2010. Popular Names for Births in Puerto Rico.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/babynames/territory/puertorico2010.html (accessed Macrh 2, 2014).

van Evera, S. 1994. "Hypotheses on Nationalism and War." International Security 18, 4: 5-39.

Wallerstein, I. 2004. World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Raleigh, NC: Duke University

Press.

Wright, E.O. 1978. "Race, Class and Income Inequality." American Journal of Sociology 83, 6:

1368-1397.

31

Tables

Table 1: Usage of Social Rights by Program

Utilized By

Frequency

Percent of

Respondents

Social Security and Medicare 78 21%

Medicaid 59 17%

Food Stamps 80 22%

TANF 13 4%

Table 2: Factor analysis of Means-Tested Welfare Variable

Factor Loading

Medicaid 0.644

Food Stamps 0.806

TANF 0.712

Table 3: Distribution of Means-Tested Welfare Usage Variable

Frequency

Percent of

Respondents

0 Programs 294 73.3%

1 Program 72 18.0%

2 Programs 29 7.2%

3 Programs 6 1.5%

32

Table 4: Binary Logistic Regression on pro-Independence

B Exp(B)

B Exp(B)

Constant

-3.695

0.025

-3.005

0.050

0.929 0.989

Age

-0.044**

0.957

-0.051***

0.950

0.015 0.015

Years of Education

0.168*

1.183

0.162*

1.176

0.076 0.080

Annual Income

0.137

1.147

0.076

1.079

0.078 0.085

Cultural Nationalism

1.663***

5.274

1.834***

6.260

0.476 0.494

Political Deprivation

0.529

1.696

0.227

1.255

0.469 0.484

Territorial Economic Status

0.409

1.505

0.427

1.533

0.476 0.484

Means Tested Welfare Programs

-1.209** 0.298

33

0.467

Social Security and Medicare

1.289*

3.628

0.557

Nagelkerke R Square

0.232 0.293

Cox & Snell R Square

0.116 0.146

***ρ<0.001, **ρ<0.01, *ρ<0.05

i Although respondents reporting 16 years of schooling were not asked whether or not they had

completed a degree, there was a significant cluster of respondents (with 26% of respondents

reporting they had 16 years of schooling) compared to 2% at 15 years of schooling and 2.2% at

17 years.

ii I used American Community Survey 1-year estimates for 2012, as reported by the American

FactFinder “Selected Social Characteristics in Puerto Rico” to establish population educational

attainment and determine appropriate weighting values. Although weighting is clearly

appropriate, results show the same pattern of significant and insignificant estimates with and

without weighting.

34

iii

Survey collection was anonymous, and this research uses the Social Security Administration’s

list of most popular birth names in Puerto Rico to randomly assign participant same-gender

names (US Social Security Administration 2010).