Mexican American Fertility Patterns 9780292769779

Citation preview

Mexican American Fertility Patterns

Mexican American Monograph Number 10 The Center for Mexican American Studies The University of Texas at Austin

Mexican American Fertility Patterns Frank D. Bean Gray Swicegood

University of Texas Press, Austin

Copyright © 1985 by the University of Texas Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America First Edition, 1985 Requests for permission to reproduce material from this work should be sent to Permissions, University of Texas Press, Box 7819, Austin, Texas 78713. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Bean, Frank D. Mexican American fertility patterns. (Mexican American monographs,- no. 10) Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Fertility, Human—United States. 2. Mexican American—Population. I. Swicegood, Gray, 1950II. Title. III. Series. HB915.B4 1985 304.6,0896872073 85-20363 ISBN 0-292-75087-0

To our mothers

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Contents

Preface

ix

Acknowledgments

1. Introduction

xi

1

2. Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory 9 3. The Idea of Opportunity Costs and Minority/Majority Fertility Differences 34 4. Sources of Data and Methodological Considerations 5. Generational Status and Fertility

52

69

6. Language Patterns, Female Education and Employment, and Fertility 94 7. Juxtaposition of Opportunity Costs and Minority Group Status Hypotheses 122 8. Summary and Conclusions Appendices References Index

175

153 159

145

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Preface

This monograph reports research findings dealing with the ef­ fects of generation on fertility and with the relationship between linguistic patterns and fertility among Mexican Americans. Research results are also presented concerning the manner in which several variables that measure access to social and economic opportunities condition the effects of female educa­ tion on fertility within not only the Mexican American but also the black population. As the monograph tries to argue, this lat­ ter endeavor provides a comparative framework within which to evaluate the relative merits of "opportunity costs" and "minori­ ty group status" hypotheses as they pertain to Mexican American and black fertility behavior. The research involves a series of analyses of three sources of data—1970 and 1980 United States Census Public Use Sample data and the 1976 Survey of Income and Education data—ex­ amined for the purpose of investigating patterns of fertility varia­ tion both within the Mexican American population and between the Mexican American and other white populations. The monograph begins with three nonempirical chapters. The first introduces the study, the second reviews the theoretical and research literature relevant to the topic, and the third sets forth the theoretical framework used to guide the analyses. Among other things, this framework involves applying the notion of op­ portunity costs to the study of minority/majority fertility dif­ ferentials. Chapter 4 is a methodological chapter describing the data, measures, and statistical procedures used in the study. Chapter 5, the first of the empirical chapters, examines the ef­ fects on own-children fertility measures of generational status and of female education within generational groups. Chapter 6 applies the idea of opportunity costs to the analysis of the effects on Mexican American fertility of language proficiency/usage on the one hand and female education and employment on the

X

Preface

other. Chapter 7, written in collaboration with John P. Marcum of the University of Mississippi, undertakes a comparative analysis of Mexican American and black fertility for the purpose of ascertaining the conditions under which the differential op­ portunity costs framework or the minority group status/social characteristics framework provides a more satisfactory basis for interpreting the more negative relationships between female education and fertility observed among minority women in this as well as in other research. Chapter 8 summarizes the findings and draws conclusions from the research.

Acknowledgments

A number of persons and institutions deserve special thanks for facilitating the completion of this monograph. At the Universi­ ty of Texas at Austin, Professors Omer Galle and Dudley Poston, each of whom served as Director of the Population Research Center during the life of the project, offered encouragement and tangible support on many occasions. Thomas Linsley, head of the Computer Programming and Data Services Division of the Center, provided countless hours of technical and programming assistance, as did Shawn Boyd and Wolfgang Opitz. Elizabeth H. Stephen furnished invaluable research assistance. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Russell Sage Foundation, and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy each funded related projects, some of whose research findings are included in this monograph. Thanks are also extended to Professor F. Lancaster Jones of the Department of Sociology of the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University. Through its Visiting Fellows program, that university provided the first author with a support­ ive environment in which to work and to write in May and June 1983. Thanks are also owed the Carolina Population Center for post-doctoral fellowship support of the second author, which facilitated completion of the project. Carolyn P. Boyd and Amanda Harding helped in too many ways to enumerate. We also express our utmost appreciation to Sherry Young, Fran Milfeld, Connie Nicholson, and Bill Kamoscak, who typed the manuscript. Finally we would like to thank Ricardo Romo, CMAS Publications managing editor, and Jose Flores, associate editor, for their guidance and assistance in bringing this book to fruition.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Mexican American Fertility Patterns

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1. Introduction

The population of Mexican origin or descent now constitutes the fastest growing major racial/ethnic group in the United States. As a consequence, the population processes underlying this growth have come under increasing scrutiny from the demographic community and are likely to occupy an important place on its research agenda for at least the next decade. Im­ migration from Mexico (both documented and undocumented), together with higher levels of childbearing relative to the rest of the country's population, accounts for the increase in the size of the Mexican American population. Owing to the important policy concerns involved, however, recent academic and public attention has centered primarily upon the issue of immigration. Nonetheless, in the long term, change or absence of change in fertility levels, as in the past, will probably be of greater weight in determining the relative size of this ethnic group than will levels of immigration. Hence, it is both timely and important to focus attention on the fertility behavior of the Mexican origin population in the United States. Mexican American/Anglo Fertility Differentials: Historical Evidence Much of what we currently know about Mexican American fer­ tility concerns the comparatively high levels of childbearing characteristic of this population. Published 1980 Census data indicate Mexican American women aged 35-44 have on average 45 percent more children than other white women in the same age range (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1983a). Various period and cohort measures based on 1970 Census data also suggest that Mexican American women have about 35 to 45 percent more children than other white women in the United States (U.S.

2 Introduction Bureau of the Census, 1973; Rindfuss and Sweet, 1977). Further­ more, differentials of this magnitude are not of recent origin (Bradshaw and Bean, 1972). Unfortunately, demographers have not documented trends in these differences prior to 1950 with any great precision. Because Mexican Americans constitute a relatively small proportion of the total population and are geographically concentrated in the Southwest, data gathered by the U.S. Bureau of the Census have until very recently provided perhaps the only reliable source of fertility information for this subgroup. Consequently, most demographic studies of Mexican Americans are based upon Census records collected in the decen­ nial Census years. Compounding the difficulties facing the historical researcher is the fact that no entirely consistent iden­ tifier of the Mexican American population is available across censuses. The 1850 Census was the first to collect data on persons of foreign origin, but only foreign-born (first-generation im­ migrants) can be identified from this early source. Not until the 1910 Census were persons of Mexican stock (Mexican-born in­ dividuals and their offspring) enumerated separately, and very few demographic data were published for this segment of the total population of Mexican origin (Jaffe, Cullen, and Boswell, 1980: Appendix B). Therefore, information on Mexican American fertility prior to 1920 is largely restricted to firstgeneration women and to first- and second-generation women in subsequent censuses if only nativity and parentage are utilized in defining the population of interest. Since 1930, however, a variety of operational definitions of the Mexican American population have been applied, including "race (Mexican) in the 1930 Census,.. .Spanish mother tongue in the 1940 Census, .. .Spanish surname (in the five Southwestern states) in the 1950 and 1960 Censuses and .. .questions on origin or descent in the November, 1969 Current Population Survey (CPS)" and the 1970 Census (Bradshaw and Bean, 1973:101). Obviously these criteria define different but overlapping universes. The comparability of data based on the various definitions and its implications for fertility research have been discussed elsewhere (e.g., Hernandez, Estrada, and Alvirez, 1973; Bradshaw and Bean, 1972; Jaffe, Cullen, and Boswell, 1980; Fernandez, 1977). For present purposes, it is sufficient to note that the studies reviewed

Introduction

3

below necessarily employ a number of different operational definitons, and hence offer only a roughly approximate basis for comparing differential fertility across time. While acknowledging the tenuous nature of the evidence for earlier periods, we would note that it seems most likely that Mexican American fertility has substantially exceeded that of the other white population for at least a century and a quarter. Bradshaw and Bean's (1972) study of records from the 1850 Cen­ sus for Bexar County, Texas, in which child/women ratios for women aged 15-49 who were married with spouse present are reported,1 showed that Spanish-sumamed women had 32 per­ cent more children under age 5 than did white non-Spanish surnamed women (2,040 per 1,000 versus 1,543). A century later the differences were more pronounced. For the geographical area corresponding roughly to the original Bexar County boundaries, 1950 Census data indicated child/women ratios for Spanishsumamed women that were 63 percent higher than those of nonSpanish-sumamed white women. By 1960, this gap had dropped to 42 percent. While fertility levels of both comparison groups increased during these "baby boom" years, Spanish-sumamed childbearing rose proportionately less than did that of nonSpanish-sumamed women, leading to some convergence in child/women ratios. It should be noted that substantial ethnic differences characterized not just Texas, but the entire Southwest in 1950 and 1960. In 1950, for example, Spanishsumamed women aged 15-44 in the five southwestern states had 54 percent more children than did non-Spanish-sumamed women, but in 1960 only 35 percent more (Bradshaw and Bean, 1973). In the years between 1850 and 1950, it appears that Mexican Americans participated in the long secular decline in fertility along with the rest of the country, although starting from much higher levels. Jaffe, Cullen, and Boswell (1980) estimated that Mexican-born women in the United States in 1880 who were 40 to 44 years old had about 6.4 children per woman. By 1910, this 1. The child/woman ratio was defined in their study as the number of own children under age 5 per 1,000 women. This measure is not ideal for comparing fertility levels across populations with substantially different age structures and/or mortality schedules.

4 Introduction age group averaged 5.6 children ever bom and, in 1940, 5.3 children. While these estimates apply only to Mexican-born (first-generation) women, they are suggestive of fertility decline in the Mexican American population, but not of substantial con­ vergence with majority other white fertility. Uhlenberg (1973), for example, reported that in 1910, Mexican-bom women who had completed their childbearing had 6.5 children on the average as compared with 4.3 children for native-born white women, a ratio of 1.5 to 1. Mexican American/Anglo Fertility Differentials: Recent Evidence Cohort data from the 1960 and 1970 censuses tell a similar story. In 1960, ever-married Spanish-sumamed women aged 35-44 averaged 4.1 children ever bom as compared to only 2.6 for other white women (Uhlenberg, 1973). In the 1970 Census, the first in which the Mexican American population can be defined by the ethnic self-identifier question, substantial devia­ tion from other white fertility is again apparent. Mexican origin women aged 35-44 reported 46 percent more children ever bom than did other white women (4.2 versus 2.9) (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1973). The comparison of these cumulative fertility measures for women at or near the end of their childbearing in 1960 and 1970 is entirely consistent with the comparisons presented above for women aged 15-44 in 1950 and 1960, bfecause the 35-44-year-old women in 1970 had many of their children during the baby boom of the 1950s.2 Whatever slight convergence may have occurred during the 1950s appears to have halted in the 1960s if one considers period rates which take into account the recent fertility of all age cohorts. Rindfuss and Sweet (1977) estimated total fertility rates (TFR) for 1957 to 1969 using own-children data from the 1970 Census Public Use Samples for a number of ethnic groups in­ cluding Mexican Americans. Their estimates for 1957-1959 2. The cumulative fertility of younger cohorts of women (i.e., under age 35 at the time of the Censuses) was lower in 1970 than in 1960 in the case of both Mexican American and other white populations.

Introduction

5

showed a Mexican American TFR 37 percent higher than the cor­ responding total white rate, and by the years 1967-1969 this had increased to 46 percent higher than the total white rate. While the degree to which differences in recent fertility become translated into differences in completed fertility for any given cohort cannot be determined until some future point, the data presented by Rindfuss and Sweet suggest that social forces were operating against family size convergence between Mexican Americans and the rest of the population. Other recent evidence points to continuing differences of con­ siderable magnitude. Published reports from the June 1973 Cur­ rent Population Survey (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1974), for ex­ ample, present the number of children ever bom for Spanish origin and white women aged 15-49. For every age cohort the fer­ tility of the Spanish origin women exceeds that of the total white population by at least 20 percent. However, these figures almost certainly understate the Mexican American/other white differential, because persons of Mexican origin constitute only 60 percent of the Spanish origin population, yet Mexican origin women have the highest fertility of any Hispanic group. For ex­ ample, the total fertility rate (the average number of live births a cohort of women would have if they adhered to the age-specific birth rates of a given year) estimated for Mexican origin women in 1980 on the basis of vital statistics data was 2.90 compared to 2.53 for all Hispanic women and 1.69 for non-Hispanic white women (Ventura, 1983). The most recent and striking evidence of sustained fertility differentials comes from published tabulations of 1980 Census data. Mexican origin women aged 35-44 reported an average 3.6 children ever bom as compared to 2.5 for other white women in the same age range—an ethnic difference of about 45 percent among women approaching the end of their childbearing years. Differentials for younger age groups are even more apparent. In 1980, Mexican origin women aged 25-34 had borne an average 52 percent more children than other white women (2.1 versus 1.4), and for women in the 15-24 age range Mexican origin women had twice the number of children of other whites (0.53 versus 0.26) (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1983a). Taken as a whole, these results provide ample documentation of substantial aggregate fertility differences between the popula­

6 Introduction tion of Mexican origin and other whites during the last 125 years. Despite the fact that there has been little evidence to sug­ gest a significant convergence in relative terms, it is important to note that secular trends in fertility have been similar for both groups. This suggests that the forces affecting mean levels of fer­ tility, if not those affecting variation within groups, may be similar across groups. The sustained group differences across time also imply that factors associated with ethnic or minority group membership contribute to continuing differences in fer­ tility among groups. It is the goal of this monograph to present the results of theoretically guided empirical analyses that further elucidate the nature and magnitude of fertility differences be­ tween Mexican American and other white women on the one hand and among categories of Mexican American women on the other.

Theoretical Frameworks Our thesis is that fertility behavior among Mexican American women can be best understood by considering the generally in­ ferior educational and socioeconomic opportunities available to them. In this sense, our explanation of Mexican American fer­ tility patterns emphasizes the importance of structural factors in constraining fertility decisions. In order to clarify what we mean by this statement, it is useful to consider briefly the alternative explanations for higher fertility among Mexican American women. Essentially, these are three: the subcultural, the social characteristics, and the minority group status hypotheses. We discuss these at length below, but mention their main features here in order to highlight the nature and direction of our argu­ ment. The subcultural approach suggests that the higher fertility of Mexican Americans stems from the persistence of cultural norms and values supporting large families, such as familism—a constellation of norms and values giving overriding importance to the collective needs of the family as opposed to the individual (Bean, Curtis, and Marcum, 1977)—or adherence to the pronatalist positions of the Catholic church, including proscrip­ tions against certain forms of birth control. Whatever the

Introduction

7

specific supporting value, the idea is that Mexican Americans continue to exhibit higher fertility because of a lingering residue of norms and values that support the benefits of having a large number of children. A second perspective has come to be called the social characteristics hypothesis by sociologists (Bean and Marcum, 1978). It does not deny the possible validity of the subcultural approach, but argues instead that differences in such characteristics as education and other factors may account for most or all of the fertility difference between Mexican American and other white women. This view implies that "structural" assimilation with respect to education, occupation, and income will lead to the elimination of fertility differences between minority and majority groups. The minority group status approach (Goldscheider and Uhlenberg, 1969) suggests that under certain circumstances an additional social-psychological factor, consisting of feelings of marginality and insecurity among members of minority groups, comes into play. These feelings are experienced most acutely by those who aspire to greater mobility and who are therefore more sensitive to the obstacles placed in their path by patterns of discrimination. According to this hypothesis, such persons, who are likely to be overrepresented among the most socioeconomically advanced members of the minority group, will compensate by lowering their fertility. Goldscheider and Uhlenberg invoke this kind of explanation to account for the lower fertility sometimes observed among highly educated black women as compared to highly educated white women. These explanations should be viewed as complementary rather than as contradictory. The kinds of forces outlined in each explanation could all operate at once. For this reason, it is futile to try to find "the single explanation" for Mexican American/other white fertility differences. Such is not our pur­ pose here. We endeavor, however, to illuminate the role played by structural opportunities in affecting Mexican American fer­ tility. We first set forth a theoretical framework that specifies the manner in which "opportunity costs" affect fertility. In a sense, the operation of opportunity costs is nothing more than the individual manifestation of the influence of structural posi­ tion on behavioral outcomes, including fertility. We next at­

8 Introduction tempt to demonstrate that Mexican American women, as re­ vealed in their fertility behavior, act in a manner consistent with what we would expect if opportunity costs were influencing their fertility decisions. We then “shift our focus from the individual characteristics presumed to reflect the structure of societal positions to a more direct assessment of the structure of opportunities external to the individual. This is important, because to the extent that we are only able to infer the influence of structural factors from rela­ tionships involving individual characteristics such as education and occupation, there always exists the possibility that socialpsychological factors may be responsible for the empirical regularities observed. For example, the more negative relation­ ship between female education and fertility frequently observed in the case of racial or ethnic minorities as compared to majority whites could be interpreted in two ways. It might reflect a rising opportunity cost of childbearing with increasing education, an interpretation consistent with the idea that fertility behavior reflects the structure of rewards associated with positions for which education is a qualification. An alternative and perhaps equally plausible argument, however, is that increased education among minority women heightens their sense of insecurity and marginality as they come to realize that they cannot fully realize their mobility aspirations, thus leading them to curtail their fer­ tility instead. How can we tell which of these two explanations is the more valid? As we argue in chapter 7, the former implies that the rela­ tionship becomes more negative under external conditions of greater opportunity, whereas the latter implies that it becomes more negative under external conditions of lesser opportunity. In either case, without examining the external structure of op­ portunities, we cannot readily see whether an opportunity costs or a frustration-compensation approach better explains the fer­ tility pattern. Hence, the analyses presented in this monograph examine not only the individual manifestations of structural position, but also the external structure of opportunities. As we argue in the chapters that follow, the pattern of evidence that emerges reinforces the conclusion that the comparative lack of socioeconomic opportunities available to Mexican American women sustains their higher levels of childbearing.

2. Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory As recently as 1978, Sullivan (1978:165) suggested that "minori­ ty group demography has remained more descriptive than theoretical and more devoted to documenting the size and extent of differences among minorities than explaining them." Clearly, this was true in the case of racial and ethnic group fertility research prior to the formulation of the minority group status hypothesis. Group differences in family size had been observed in early studies, particularly in the cases of European immigrant and black populations, but relatively little emphasis was placed on the interpretation of these differences. The explanations ad­ vanced for immigrant group fertility focused on cultural factors (including religion) in the countries of origin that were thought to generate higher levels of childbearing among immigrant women as compared to native American women. Studies of black fertility also pointed to subcultural differences rooted in the legacy of black slavery (Petersen, 1975). But in the absence of specific measures of cultural influences upon which to base em­ pirical tests, such explanations remained largely speculative. Early Explanations of Minority/Majority Differentials Typically, the initial documentation of variation in fertility by race and ethnicity appeared in highly aggregated form with little attention given to intergroup compositional differences in age, educational and occupational attainment, rural/urban residence, and regional location. As investigators began to examine data in a manner that allowed for racial and ethnic fertility comparisons while controlling for these and other factors, previously observed differences were less pronounced or absent altogether. A cor­ responding shift in analytical focus occurred, with group fertility differentials more likely to be explained in terms of intergroup

10 Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory variation in socioeconomic composition as opposed to cultural traits. This change in emphasis was particularly apparent in studies of black fertility (e.g., Lee and Lee, 1952, 1959; Farley, 1966). The Lees (1959:table 1), for example, presented white and nonwhite child/woman ratios from the 1950 Census cross­ classified by educational attainment, and urban, rural nonfarm, and rural farm residence. The only comparison in which non­ white fertility exceeded that of whites was among less educated farm residents, leading the authors (1959:231) to conclude that "the higher Negro fertility can be explained in terms of dif­ ferences in education and socioeconomic level." While the Lees also noted that fertility among more highly educated blacks was actually lower than that among similarly educated whites, they did not elaborate this finding other than to suggest that blacks experiencing upward socioeconomic mobility might be especial­ ly likely to restrict their childbearing because of disadvantages associated with their race. To the extent that they involved explanations of differen­ tial racial and ethnic fertility, the perspectives advanced in these studies might be characterized as "cultural" and "compositional," respectively. Both perspectives, however, shared several important features. Both were assimilationist in their assumption that acculturation processes and socioeconomic convergences presumably already under way at the time would eventually be translated into demographic con­ vergence. Also, there was a tendency to focus attention on subgroups characterized by higher fertility than the native-born white population. As in the case of Mexican Americans today, this selective emphasis probably arose from social and political concerns with immigration and minority group policies. Last, most of this work shared a limited consideration of the manner in which the dynamics of minority/majority relations might con­ dition reproductive outcomes for minority subgroups. While allowing for the importance of cultural and socioeconomic factors, Goldscheider and Uhlenberg (1969) challenged the adequacy of the compositional or "character­ istics" hypothesis and proposed an independent role for minority group status in explaining racial and ethnic fertility differentials. They did not suggest that compositional differen­ ces are not a factor in differential group fertility, but only that

Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory

11

these differences alone could not account for the patterns of racial and ethnic fertility observed after controlling for socioeconomic characteristics. By citing data from previous research and published Census tables, they demonstrated that when the majority white and several racial/ethnic populations were equated with respect to socioeconomic characteristics, substantial majority/minority differences in actual and desired fertility remained. Goldscheider and Uhlenberg took these residual differences to be worthy of explanation in their own right and thereby brought attention to racial/ethnic differences in pat­ terns of childbearing as well as in levels. Of particular note in the data which they reviewed was the suggestion that under cer­ tain conditions minority group status per se might operate to depress fertility and thus account for the unusually low family sizes observed for more highly educated blacks, Jews, and Japanese Americans residing outside the West. Since fertility levels lower than those of the majority white population were not in evidence for all subgroups or for all social classes of particular subgroups (i.e., blacks), Goldscheider and Uhlenberg specified a variety of conditions that might prove necessary for the depressing effect of minority status on fertility to operate. Their summary remarks (1969:372) indicated that such an effect might be expected when: (1) acculturation of minority group members has occurred in conjunction with the desire for acculturation; (2) equal­ ization of social and economic characteristics occurs, particularly at middle and upper social class levels, and/or there is a desire for social and economic mobility,- and (3) (3) there is no pronatalist ideology associated with the minority group and no norm discouraging the use of effi­ cient contraceptives. These remarks make it clear that Goldscheider and Uhlenberg maintained the importance of a cultural dimension in the deter­ mination of minority group fertility. The third point, for exam­ ple, was especially important in their discussion of high Catholic fertility. They considered this to be a consequence of "greater commitments to a religious ideology or socio-cultural norms encouraging large families or restrictions on the max­ imum choice with respect to contraceptive usage" (1969:372).

12 Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory Their complete discussion of Catholic fertility (and by exten­ sion other "pronatalist minorities"), however, presented a more complex picture than the above passage would imply. In par­ ticular, they noted that there is a substantial fertility variation among Catholics both across ethnic boundaries in the United States (e.g. Irish and Italian origin) and across the national boun­ daries of Western Europe. For American ethnics, this heterogeneity was attributed to differential integration into a general Catholic social milieu on the one hand, and to differen­ tial acculturation into majority group life on the other. This recognition of the varying degrees to which Catholic subgroups were integrated into majority society is important because it im­ plies that individual minority group members may also be more or less integrated into their own subculture.1 Goldscheider and Uhlenberg's designation of acculturation as a prerequisite for minority status effects on fertility also merits further comment. The concept of acculturation, while seeming­ ly straightforward, has been subject to a variety of interpreta­ tions and operational definitions. Gordon's (1964) classic typology of the seven stages of ethnic assimilation, for example, included an acculturation stage comprised of a cultural and a behavioral component. In fact, one indicator of acculturation suggested by Gordon (1964:191-192) was actual fertility behavior. Because achieved fertility constitutes the dependent variable in Goldscheider and Uhlenberg's analysis, their use of the concept was no doubt intended to be more restrictive in scope than Gordon's. Aspects of acculturation most crucial to their hypothesis would appear to be the adaptation of majority group norms and values associated with desired family size and socioeconomic attainment on the part of minority group

1. The argument can be made that in contemporary American society Catholics do not constitute a minority group. This argument has two bases. First, American Catholics as a whole are composed of a variety of diverse subgroups with different ethnic origins. Goldscheider and Uhlenberg clearly recognized this diversity and emphasized that it should be incorporated into any analysis of Catholic fertility. Second, it may be argued that Catholics as a group are no longer the object of discriminatory behavior. Whatever truth this point now has, it was probably not the case at the time when the data examined by Goldscheider and Uhlenberg were gathered.

Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory

13

members (Bean and Marcum, 1978).2 Despite ambiguities that arise from their lack of specificity in characterizing the acculturation process, it seems clear that Goldscheider and Uhlenberg retained the elements of accultura­ tion and pronatalist subcultural norms in their explanatory framework in order to account for the comparatively high levels of childbearing observed among certain segments of some racial and ethnic groups (even after adjusting for group differences in socioeconomic characteristics). Consequently, their perspective on the high fertility of certain racial and ethnic subpopulations differed from earlier studies primarily in its recognition of the necessity of taking into account compositional differences before drawing conclusions about the role of cultural factors in producing aggregate subgroup differentials. The principal theoretical contribution of their work is found in their explana­ tion of situations wherein minority group fertility levels might be depressed because of minority group status alone. The minority status hypothesis attributes such lower fertility to in­ securities generated by discrimination and by the additional bar­ riers to social mobility faced by minority group members. Acculturation alone, then, is not sufficient to induce an in­ dependent minority group status effect on fertility. Goldscheider and Uhlenberg's second conditional statement suggested that some degree of social mobility either achieved or desired must occur in conjunction with acculturation. It is on this basis that minority group status effects are argued to be more likely at middle- and upper-class levels. Enhancing one's socioeconomic position is presumably more difficult for minority group members. These difficulties lead to insecurities with respect to maintaining or improving one's position and in turn to diminished childbearing. Acculturated minority group members may even make significant strides on a particular status dimension such as education only to see their efforts unrewarded in terms of more complete structural assimilation. Goldscheider and Uhlenberg (1969:372) speculated that structural

2. Even less clear is the notion of desire for acculturation if one conceives of culture or subculture as a set of norms and values surrounding society's basic in­ stitutions and processes.

14 Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory separation for these persons promotes an increased sense of marginality, making restricted family size all the more likely. The logic of their argument strongly implies that the socialpsychological states which trigger the minority group status ef­ fect on fertility derive from the structural relations between ma­ jority and minority groups. In this important sense, Goldscheider and Uhlenberg expanded the theoretical base underlying racial and ethnic group fertility analysis. By propos­ ing an independent role for minority status in reproductive behavior, their work generated efforts aimed not only at testing their hypothesis but also at clarifying the effects of intragroup subcultural and socioeconomic characteristics on minority group fertility. The stimulating effect of their ideas is clearly reflected in any review of racial/ethnic fertility research con­ ducted subsequent to publication of their article. While not all recent studies in this area have attempted to test the minority group status hypothesis directly, most have been guided by Goldscheider and Uhlenberg's elaboration of the various sources of minority/majority fertility differentials. The Minority Group Status and Fertility Literature Given the number of influences that Goldscheider and Uhlenberg incorporated into their explanation of racial and ethnic fertility differentials, it is hardly surprising that subse­ quent research in this area reflects a variety of analytical strategies. Bean and Marcum's (1978) assessment and review of studies designed to test the minority group status hypothesis il­ lustrates this diversity, but also suggests a useful framework for summarizing this literature. The following discussion draws upon their organizational scheme in its identification of three broad approaches to minority group fertility that have emerged in response to Goldscheider and Uhlenberg's work. Generally this research can be classified as (1) comparative, (2) contextual, or (3) intragroup in orientation.3 While we consider several 3. Several of these studies incorporate combinations of methodological strategies and theoretical emphases in such a way as to render their classifica­ tion under a particular heading somewhat arbitrary. Various features of these studies are therefore discussed at different points in the review.

Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory

15

studies under each heading, our emphasis here is upon those that have appeared subsequent to the Bean and Marcum survey. Studies o f minority/majority fertility. On balance, research us­ ing a comparative approach has provided the most commonly accepted test of the minority group status hypothesis as for­ mulated by Goldscheider and Uhlenberg. Accordingly, studies in this vein have sought to answer the question "as to what hap­ pens when the discrepancies in social characteristics are eliminated and no longer operate to differentiate fertility behavior and attitudes" (Goldscheider and Uhlenberg, 1969:370). The question has usually been addressed by comparing the fer­ tility of one or more subpopulations with that of majority whites after statistically controlling various socioeconomic and demographic factors within a multiple regression or analysis of variance model. However, despite the use of similar methodologies, various researchers have adopted somewhat dif­ ferent positions as to what empirical results would constitute support for the minority group status hypothesis (Bean and Mar­ cum, 1978:201). In light of this ambiguity, it is useful to present clearly an interpretation of the hypothesis against which alter­ native studies can be gauged. This clarification can then provide the basis for evaluating the overall utility of Goldscheider and Uhlenberg's theory. The view expressed here is substantially in agreement with that of several recent investigators (e.g., Johnson, 1979; Bean and Marcum, 1978; Ritchey, 1975), and it emphasizes the unique aspects of Goldscheider and Uhlenberg's treatment of racial and ethnic fertility differences. According to this interpretation, the depressing effects of minority group status insecurities and marginality will not emerge until the minority group has become acculturated and achieved at least partial success with respect to structural assimilation. This leads to the prediction of a statistical interaction between socioeconomic variables and minority group status under the (usually implicit) assumption that minority group members at middle to upper ranges of the socioeconomic scale are in fact acculturated and partially assimilated. Three variants of this interpretation are presented graphically in figure 1. Figure 1A illustrates the case in which there would be no majority/minority fertility differences at lower

16 Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory

_____ Majority --------Minority Figure 1. Hypothetical Patterns of Minority and Majority Group Fertility by Socioeconomic Standing

Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory

17

socioeconomic status levels (SES). Figure IB presents a pattern wherein minority fertility is somewhat lower than that of the majority at all levels of SES but especially so at higher levels. Figure 1C displays a cross-over pattern in which minority fertili­ ty is higher than the majority's at lower levels of SES and lower than the majority's at higher levels of SES. This situation might occur when a minority group has a subcultural background that includes norms supporting large families, but the strength of these norms holds sway only in the lower classes. Data and discussion presented by Goldscheider and Uhlenberg for the nonwhite population suggest that this pattern best described the relationship of black to white fertility in the South in 1960. The characteristics hypothesis against which Goldscheider and Uhlenberg counterposed their own perspective is shown in figure ID. In this instance, there is no difference between minority and majority fertility levels beyond that associated with intergroup compositional differences in socioeconomic characteristics. However, with respect to evidence supporting the "characteristics" hypothesis, Bean and Marcum noted that "adjustment for population differences in the distribution of cer­ tain socioeconomic characteristics requires the assumption that the socioeconomic variables are related to fertility in the same way within racial and ethnic groups. That is, there must be no statistical interaction between racial and ethnic group member­ ship and socioeconomic factors in their effects on fertility" (1978: 201). Three points may be drawn from this interpretation. (1) An adequate assessment of both the minority group status and characteristics hypotheses requires a test for the presence of an interaction effect on fertility between minority group member­ ship and socioeconomic characteristics. (2) The presence of a significant interaction effect, while suggesting that forces beyond those implied in the characteristics hypothesis need to be considered, provides support for the minority group status hypothesis only where the relationship between socioeconomic status and fertility is significantly more negative in the case of the minority as compared to the majority group. (3) A variety of subgroup fertility patterns are possible that are not predicted by either hypothesis and that, consequently, would require an alter­ native explanation.

18 Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory Research explicitly testing for an interaction effect of minority group membership and socioeconomic position has often assumed that only a pattern of interaction involving lower minority than majority fertility at higher status levels would support the minority group status hypothesis. As we argue in chapter 7, this is unduly restrictive. Nonetheless, research may be examined with respect to the extent to which such a pattern has been observed. Sly's (1970) analysis of variance of 1960 Census data, for example, tended to support the idea that minori­ ty fertility will fall below that of the majority at higher levels of female education. However, this pattern of fertility differences was not observed when he examined the conditional effects of minority status on other socioeconomic indicators. After omit­ ting data on women residing in the South from his sample, Sly found, in fact, little difference between white and nonwhite family size net of compositional differences in family income and husband's occupation, thus leading him to accept the characteristics hypothesis as the superior explanation of minority/majority fertility differentials. In response to Sly's initial investigation, Roberts and Lee (1974) argued that the white and nonwhite populations are statistical aggregates and not sociologically meaningful subgroups. Utilizing a different operational definition of minori­ ty status (e.g., black, Spanish-sumame, and other white) and 1960 Census data restricted to the five southwestern states (Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas), they obtained results demonstrating an independent role of race and ethnicity in family formation. Their analysis of variance pro­ duced evidence of a significant interaction effect between race/ethnicity and female education, but unlike Sly's results for the total United States, neither black nor Spanish-sumame fer­ tility was lower than that for other whites in the high education, high income, or white-collar occupational categories. In short, their research failed to support either the minority group status hypothesis in its restrictive sense or the characteristics hypothesis, but it did make a crucial methodological point by stressing the importance of defining minority group member­ ship. Ritchey's (1975) study of black/white fertility differentials pro­ vides the most consistent evidence favoring the minority group

Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory

19

status explanation. His cogent interpretation of Goldscheider and Uhlenberg's original article emphasized that demonstration of a minority group status effect on fertility required the presence of an interaction between race and socioeconomic level of the form shown in figure 1C. Noting that Goldscheider and Uhlenberg were ambiguous about what sort of minority/majori­ ty differences might be expected at lower socioeconomic levels, he argued that, in this instance, black fertility should be higher than that of whites for two reasons. First, due to "subcultural ideologies and traditional modes of behavior," black fertility has historically been higher than white fertility. Second, at lower levels of socioeconomic status (e.g., education) blacks have little or no potential for social mobility, leading to an absence of ra­ tional family planning on the one hand and greater adherence to subcultural norms on the other (1975: 251-254). Ritchey then estimated regression equations for three samples of ever-married black and white women aged 15-44 drawn from the 1970 Cen­ sus Public Use Samples. The equations predicted the number of children ever bom from a variable set including age, labor force status, race, education, and the interaction of race and education. Plots of the regression slopes revealed racial differences in the pattern of fertility by education consistent with Ritchey's for­ mulation for two of his three samples (1975:figure l).4 However, Ritchey's empirical results, like those of others (e.g., Sly, 1970; Roberts and Lee, 1974; Bean and Wood, 1974; Jiobu and Mar­ shall, 1977), have been regarded as inconclusive due to the failure to control adequately for possible confounding variables. This deficiency has been partially addressed in a recent study of black/white fertility differentials. Johnson's (1979) analysis, like Ritchey's, explicitly posed the question of minority group status effects in terms of racial differences in the pattern of fer­ tility by female education. Four alternative patterns are con­ sidered, including those presented earlier as figure 1A, 1C, and ID. Two of these patterns find their theoretical basis in the 4. Ritchey had predicted that the presence of minority group status effects on fertility would be conditioned by the context of majority/minority relations and drew his three samples accordingly. This aspect of his study is discussed in the following section on contextual approaches to racial/ethnic fertility dif­ ferences.

20 Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory predictions of the minority group status hypothesis, and they are identified respectively as strong (figure 1C) and weak forms (figure 1A) of the hypothesis. In both versions, black fertility is predicted to be lower than that of whites at educational levels in­ volving at least some college attendance, but according to the strong version of the hypothesis, black fertility is posited to ex­ ceed that of whites at low levels of education attainment, while in the weak version, no racial differences are expected at low levels of schooling. Johnson counterposed these two forms of the minority group status hypothesis with strong and weak forms of the characteristics hypothesis. The strong form cor­ responds to figure ID above and predicts no group differences in education effects on fertility. The weak form of the characteristics hypothesis, however, does imply an interaction effect between race and education such that black family size will be greater than that of whites in the lower range of the educational scale, with this differential diminishing and disap­ pearing when comparisons are made at the middle to upper ranges of the scale (see figure 2). As we show below in chapter 7,

. Majority Minority

SES Figure 2. Patterns of Minority Group Fertility Predicted by the Weak Form of the Characteristics Hypothesis

Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory

21

there is reason to treat this pattern also as consistent with the minority group status hypothesis. Johnson (1979:1387-1388) noted that differential rates of social change within the minority population could produce such a pattern of racial fertility dif­ ferences because: The transition in social characteristics for a population is thought to be initiated by "those whose perspectives reach beyond their own culture" (Cowgill, 1963, p. 273); that is those of the upper classes, who provide economic demographic, and social models toward which subpopula­ tions are oriented (Cowgill, 1963; Abu-Lughod, 1964). If structural change is causing the social, demographic and economic characteristics of blacks and whites to become equivalent and if racial disparity arises only in composi­ tional differences, then a disappearance of racially distinct family sizes is thought to occur first among highly educated blacks. This explanation of greater socioeconomic differences in fertili­ ty among minorities has been discussed elsewhere in the literature (cf. Ryder, 1973; Browning, 1974). Basically it posits eventual convergence of minority and majority fertility when all classes of the minority group adopt rational family planning, although it makes no reference to the possibility that minority group fertility might drop below the majority group at some point in the transition to low fertility regimes. After citing a body of current research consistent with this in­ terpretation of minority childbearing, Johnson speculated that, among the four competing positions, the weak form of the characteristics hypothesis offered the most promising approach, and her subsequent empirical analyses supported that conjec­ ture. Her procedures for evaluating the alternative perspectives were the most sophisticated applied to the problem at the time. The data base investigated by Johnson consisted of the 6,597 ever-married black and white women under age 45 included in the 1970 National Fertility Study (NFS). Initial regression models indicated the presence of statistically significant effects of race, female education, and the interaction of race and educa­ tion on the number of children ever bom net of eight other socioeconomic and demographic control variables. These

22

Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory

results led Johnson to conclude that the conditional effect of race on the education/fertility relationship was not spurious and pro­ vided the basis for the second stage of her analysis. This in­ volved decomposing the variance in fertility jointly explained by race and education, thus allowing her to compare systematically the magnitude and significance of black/white fertility dif­ ferences at each level of schooling. Among women with eight or fewer years of education, black fertility exceeded that of whites by 1.42 children—a clearly significant gap. However, when women with four or more years of college were compared, blacks had on average only 0.08 more children than did whites. These findings were interpreted as consistent with what Johnson called the weak form of the characteristics hypothesis and thus were in accordance with her expectations. It is important to note that Johnson did not reject the possibili­ ty that the strong version of the minority status hypothesis might have characterized racial differences in fertility at some earlier time, particularly in the South. "[P]rior to the civil rights movement of the 1960's, black mean fertility was perhaps significantly lower than white mean fertility for those having at­ tended college, since lack of structural assimilation probably re­ quired greater sacrifices of child-centered behavior for mobile blacks" (1969:1399). While not rejecting Goldscheider and Uhlenberg's early conclusions or Sly's findings with respect to the South, Johnson made no tests for the presence of interaction patterns more congruous with the minority group status hypothesis among older cohorts or southern women. Presumably the 1970 NFS data base provided too few cases with which to investigate such higher order interactions.5 5. Curiously, fohnson appears to reject the portion of Ritchey's results that supported a minority group status perspective, because he did not apply a significance test to the estimated mean differences between black and white fer­ tility despite the fact that his data, like her own, were for 1970. In two of Rit­ chey's subsamples, black women with four or more years of college had an estimated 0.35 fewer children on average than did their white counterparts. Given the sample sizes with which Ritchey was working, it seems likely that a difference of this magnitude wuld be statistically significant if Johnson's techni­ ques were applied. As to the disparity between the studies, sampling variability could, of course, account for this. On the other hand, regional variation in the pattern of education effects by race strongly suggests itself, because results most consistent with the minority group status hypothesis are obtained in Ritchey's sample that includes primarily states in the South.

Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory

23

Despite this limitation, Johnson's study represents one of the most careful attempts to test the minority group status perspec­ tive with data for the American black population. By counterposing alternative hypotheses, her work clearly adheres to an in­ terpretation of the Goldscheider and Uhlenberg thesis that re­ quires minorities to exhibit lower fertility than the majority at middle to upper social strata, a view we question in chapter 7. More importantly, it suggests that other patterns of racial/ethnic fertility differences also require explication. That is, Johnson's study to some extent goes beyond the observation that residual group differences in childbearing often occur after adjusting for differences in social characteristics and highlights intergroup variation in the impact of socioeconomic factors on fertility, whatever their form. Much of the research designed to test the minority group status hypothesis has focused on blacks, the largest minority population in the United States. As indicated above, Roberts and Lee (1974) did compare Spanish-sumamed women in the Southwest with other whites and found greater discrepancies in the number of children ever bom between these two groups at lower levels of socioeconomic attainment, with diminishing gaps at higher levels. These results parallel Johnson's findings for blacks, but since Roberts and Lee applied minimal statistical controls for other factors and also truncated the fertility variance by virtue of the way they delimited their sample, the question of the presence of minority group status effects within the Mexican American population could not be resolved. It is interesting to note that the accumulation of research seek­ ing to test the minority group status hypothesis by examining the differential effects of socioeconomic factors across racial/ethnic groups has been accompanied by an increasing tendency to focus upon female education as the critical in­ dicator. Comparability with previous research has been offered as a major justification for concentrating on this particular dimension of social standing (Johnson, 1979). Since husband's occupation and income may also be likely to reflect actual social mobility, these variables offer alternative ways to assess the hypothesis. One implication of this observation is that the ef­ fect of other socioeconomic variables on childbearing may vary across subpopulations. Recent comparative studies (e.g., Bean

24 Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory and Wood, 1974; Gurak, 1978) not specifically designed to test the minority status hypothesis support this idea. Bean and Wood, for example, reported racial and ethnic differences in the effect of income on fertility for women in the Southwest. For Anglos the impact both of husband's actual and of relative in­ come were positive, but for blacks the net relationship between these income variables and number of children ever bom was negative. Patterns for Mexican American women were mixed, with actual income being negatively related to fertility but relative income positively related. While not speaking directly to the minority group status hypothesis, these results suggest that tests of the hypothesis that rely on interaction effects as evidence might also focus on other dimensions of socioeconomic stratification than female education. Contextual approaches. Since barriers to mobility are a necessary condition to trigger minority group status insecurities, it follows that variations in the opportunities for socioeconomic attainment afforded to racial and ethnic groups should influence the likelihood of minority group status effects on fertility, an idea we elaborate in chapter 7. Some researchers have incor­ porated this contextual factor into their comparative analysis. Ritchey (1975), for example, reasoned that minority group status effects are more likely in areas where racial inequality is greatest. Consequently, the three separate subsamples used in his study were selected according to this criterion. His regres­ sion analysis suggested that the negative impact of female educa­ tion on the fertility of black women was most pronounced in states with high racial inequality. Kennedy (1973) also em­ phasized the importance of the social and political context in determining differential group fertility in his comparative in­ vestigation of demographic processes in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. In particular, he interpreted the relative­ ly higher fertility of Catholics in Northern Ireland as a response to the political, social, and economic discrimination faced by the group as a religious minority. Kennedy did not test, however, for the possibility that this response was not uniform across socioeconomic levels. A similar logic lies behind Johnson and Nishida's (1980) study of Japanese and Chinese American fertility in Hawaii and California. The social context of the two states differs in that

Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory

25

whites represent a numerical majority in California while in Hawaii no racial/ethnic subgroup constitutes more than 40 per­ cent of the total population. This led the researchers to hypothesize (1) no differences in the fertility of Japanese and Chinese American women as compared to that of white women in Hawaii and (2) lower Japanese and Chinese fertility in Califor­ nia as compared to other whites in the state and to Japanese and Chinese Americans living in Hawaii. Their findings indicated no significant minority/white differentials in either state, although the fertility of both Oriental origin groups was lower in Califor­ nia than Hawaii. This latter result was interpreted as support for that version of the minority group status hypothesis which sug­ gests that minority group membership will operate to reduce childbearing net of other social and economic characteristics. The crucial facet of minority group membership in Goldscheider and Uhlenberg's formulation is not the presence or absence of a numerical majority, as Johnson and Nishida sug­ gested (1980:496), but rather the structural relations within the society that pose barriers to the social and economic attainment of individuals because they are members of a particular racial or ethnic group. Johnson and Nishida did not make clear, however, the extent to which the two states differ on this dimension. Morever, the fact that Japanese and Chinese American fertility is lower in California than in Hawaii must be considered weak evidence given that a similar pattern of state differences characterizes white fertility as well. Furthermore, the authors did not attempt to test for interaction effects between minority status and socioeconomic variables or inquire into the extent to which such effects might vary across states. In short, the con­ ceptual and procedural features of this study limit generaliza­ tions about the impact of minority/majority relations on mi­ nority group childbearing. The racial or ethnic composition of the social milieu in which individuals work or reside is another contextual factor posited to influence minority fertility (Bean and Marcum, 1978). This argu­ ment is usually applied to subgroups thought to be characterized by norms favoring high fertility. The idea is that residential and occupational segregation serves to reinforce those norms. Em­ pirical research (e.g., Cooney, Rogler, and Schroder, 1981; Gurak, 1980; Marcum, 1976) has tended to support this notion.

26 Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory However, studies in this vein either have not examined the in­ teraction effects of racial and ethnic concentration and socioeconomic factors on fertility or have not compared minori­ ty fertility levels across various contexts with those of the ma­ jority group. Generally this research takes residential and oc­ cupational segregation to be indicators of acculturation or assimilation that may vary independently of individual-level socioeconomic characteristics but that nevertheless affect in­ dividual fertility behavior. This emphasis has significant bear­ ing on the issue of minority group fertility because it acknowledges that all segments of a racial/ethnic group are not likely to be equally acculturated or equally motivated toward this end. This being the case, the presence of the inhibiting ef­ fects of minority group status on fertility will depend on in­ tragroup heterogeneity. Contextual factors, however, represent only one of the many factors impinging on racial and ethnic group fertility. The relationship between other facets of ethnici­ ty and fertility has received increased attention in recent literature. Intragroup approaches. Another approach to the study of racial and ethnic fertility differentials has also followed in the wake of Goldscheider and Uhlenberg's formulation. Studies following this approach generally do not claim to test the minority group status hypothesis directly, but instead focus on the internal heterogeneity of racial and ethnic groups with respect to individual acculturation and social assimilation. In general, this line of research has sought to estimate the impact on fertility of various dimensions of ethnicity not thought to be adequately tapped by the usual indicators of socioeconomic status (e.g., education, occupation, and income). Consequently, this approach derives from the notion that acculturation and assimilation are processes that may occur independently of each other (Gordon, 1964). While this distinction is apparent in many discussions of minority group status effects on fertility, in­ cluding Goldscheider and Uhlenberg's, early empirical tests of their hypothesis relied heavily upon indicators of assimila­ tion—such as education, occupation, and income—and em­ ployed no direct measures of acculturation. In effect, the assumption was that minority group members who have acheived some degree of assimilation according to these measures are

Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory

27

acculturated or desire acculturation. The following section covers research that has examined the relationship among various dimensions of acculturation/assimilation and fertility and that has thus provided additional insight into factors presumed to condition minority status effects on fertility. Lopez and Sabagh (1978) recognized a tendency in racial and ethnic fertility research to explain residual differences (those re­ maining after controls for relevant socioeconomic and demographic variables) in terms of two theoretical positions, ex­ ternal structural characteristics on the one hand and subcultural norms on the other. Both perspectives are utilized in Goldscheider and Uhlenberg's explanation of the fertility levels of various groups, with structural effects thought to account for the low fertility of Jews and high status blacks and subcultural norms for high Catholic fertility. Lopez and Sabagh argued that a general theory based on one perspective or the other would be preferable and consequently proposed a test of the relative merits of the structural effects approach and the subcultural nor­ mative approach in explaining Mexican American fertility. Although strictly speaking they had no direct measures of either concept, they reasoned that support for the alternative positions could be inferred from the patterns of association between ethnic integration and childbearing. A net positive relationship between the two would constitute evidence consistent with the idea of normative effects, since greater ethnic integration should be associated with greater exposure to subcultural norms in sup­ port of large families. A net negative relationship would tend to favor the structural position, since greater ethnic integration should be associated with greater awareness of external discrimination. These ideas were tested using sample data from Mexican American couples residing in Los Angeles in 1973. An important feature of the Lopez and Sabagh study is the em­ phasis placed on the multidimensionality of ethnicity. Accord­ ingly, they employed three different measures of ethnic integra­ tion in their regression analyses. These included social ethnicity (having mostly Chicano friends and speaking mostly Spanish at home); media ethnicity (watching and listening to Spanishlanguage television and radio); and context ethnicity (the ethnic composition of the neighborhood of residence and husband's workplace). Social and media ethnicity were argued to be the

28

Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory

superior indicators of "sociocultural ethnic integration" into the Mexican American community and context ethnicity to be in­ dicator of "intrinsic components of lower status and resource deprivation not taken into account by ordinary SES statistical controls" (1978:1493). These three measures of ethnic integra­ tion—along with controls for wife's age at marriage, husband's and wife's education, and husband's occupation—were included in a regression equation with the number of children ever bom as the dependent variable for two age cohorts of Mexican-raised and U.S.-raised Mexican American women. Two clear patterns were present in their results. Social and media ethnicity both had a negative impact on fertility net of other factors, while con­ text ethnicity had a strong positive net effect on fertility. Lopez and Sabagh focused their conclusions on the negative relationships between social and media ethnicity and noted that these patterns supported the structural explanation of minority group status effects which argues that awareness of external discrimination leads to reduced levels of childbearing. They also rendered an interpretation of the positive effects of context ethnicity that was decidedly structural in orientation: That occupational and residential segregation, but not sociocultural ethnicity, are positively associated with fer­ tility suggests that structural forces analogous to discrimination and resource deprivation, not subcultural values, best explain high fertility among Chicanos (1978:1496). These findings are intriguing because they indicate that dif­ ferent dimensions of ethnicity may affect reproductive behavior in opposite ways. Of particular interest for the present research is the negative relationship between language usage/preference and fertility. Language has traditionally been utilized as the best, most readily available, operational definition of cultural assimilation (Hawkes, Smith, and Acredolo, 1980; Fishman, 1978; Richard, 1974; Lieberson, 1970), and its negative relation­ ship to childbearing in a high fertility ethnic group like Mexican Americans is indeed surprising. In a critique of Lopez and Sabagh's work, Marcum (1980), for example, argued that their positive context ethnicity effect might be better interpreted as support for a normative effects ex­

Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory

29

planation, because living and working among fellow ethnics maximizes intergroup social interactions. This condition, in turn, facilitates the preservation of subcultural norms. Lopez and Sabagh's (1980:384) reply to Marcum admitted the possibili­ ty that barrio residence is associated with both cultural and structural aspects of minority group life, but reiterated their belief that context ethnicity best reflects additional socioeconomic "disabilities" not captured by their control variables. However, neither their original article nor their reply to Marcum made clear the mechanism whereby these special disabilities are translated into higher fertility. Similarly, they did not offer any supporting evidence that social and media ethnicity are in fact correlated with awareness of discrimination. Thus, while Lopez and Sabagh's data point to interesting pat­ terns of relationships between childbearing and various facets of ethnicity, the absence of direct measures of subcultural norms and awareness of outgroup discriminatory behavior makes it dif­ ficult to determine the validity of their argument that a struc­ tural explanation is superior to a normative one in accounting for Mexican American fertility levels. Nevertheless, their research takes an important first step in going beyond the fre­ quent practice of attributing residual fertility differences be­ tween minority and majority groups to racial or ethnic sub­ cultures. An increased sensitivity to this issue is demonstrated in two recent studies of ethnic fertility that also employed additional indicators of acculturation and assimilation. Gurak (1980) estimated the impact of three measures of assimilation net of SES and sociodemographic variables on the number of children bom to women in a high-fertility (Mexican American) and a lowfertility (Japanese American) subpopulation. Separate regression equations were run for these two minority groups and majority whites. His results suggested that neighborhood ethnic com­ position and ethnic intermarriage operate to reduce minority/majority fertility differentials. Mexican American women aged 35-44 who were married exogamously to majority white men, for example, had 0.67 fewer children ever bom than comparable women in endogamous marriages. Similarly, Mex­ ican American women living in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods had significantly more children than did women

30

Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory

residing in more ethnically heterogeneous locales—a result paralleling earlier research. Gurak also found no significant generational differences among Mexican American women net of controls for social characteristics. Unlike Lopez and Sabagh, he interpreted his measures of assimilation as crude indicators of ethnic norms and institutions and concluded that "both the low social status of Mexican Americans and the net effect of their norms and institutions (measured with assimilation variables) must be considered to obtain a fairly adequate ex­ planation of their high level of fertility" (1980:236). One may accept the utility of assessing the impact of exogamy and residential segregation on racial and ethnic fertility, as Gurak has done, without drawing his implicit conclusion that minority status insecurities are not involved in extant group dif­ ferentials in the case of Mexican Americans. This point can be illustrated by examining Gurak's decomposition of Mexican American/majority white group fertility differences via regres­ sion standardization. The unadjusted differential between the two groups is 1.41 children (4.49 versus 3.08). After adjusting for group differences in mean levels of status and assimilation fac­ tors, the differential is reduced to 0.29 with the two sets of fac­ tors contributing about equally to the overall reduction. It is im­ portant to note that the standardization procedure chosen by Gurak is asymmetrical and uses the regression coefficient of the minority population for computational purposes. Thus, the - .64 adjustment to mean Mexican American fertility based on intergroup status differences derives almost entirely from the -.1 1 regression coefficient for female education in the Mex­ ican American equation. The corresponding coefficient for education in the majority white equation is +.01. Obviously, it is impossible to know exactly what fertility patterns by social position would obtain for each group if mean differences on status factors were to disappear, but it seems clear that Gurak's procedures do not take existing group differences in these pat­ terns as problematic. This represents a departure from the orien­ tation of the minority group status hypothesis, which was specifically formulated to explain the pattern of interaction ef­ fects on fertility of minority group status and social standing. In­ teraction effects of ethnicity and education are apparent in

Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory

31

Gurak's data even after controlling for assimilation variables, and this issue must be addressed before the potential impact of socioeconomic convergence on intergroup fertility levels can be assessed. Gurak's standardization for marital assimilation is also sub­ ject to alternative interpretations. The procedure adjusts the predicted mean fertility of Mexican American women downward by 0.58 children. This is the predicted decline that would occur if 97 percent of Mexican American women were married to other whites. In the unlikely event that exogamy rates of this magnitude did occur, the result would probably be diminished fertility among Mexican American women, and perhaps even the end of minority status. Nevertheless, standar­ dizing on mean levels of exogamy in this fashion does not war­ rant the conclusion that the normative and institutional struc­ tures of Mexican American life explain half the gross fertility differentials between this group and majority whites. Exogamy may indicate a weakened attachment to subcultural norms on the part of Mexican American women, but it also seems possible that such women would be more sensitive to their minority group status and hence more likely to experience heightened feelings of marginality. Under these circumstances it is impossi­ ble to differentiate a minority group status effect from a nor­ mative one. In this sense, Gurak overinterpreted the results for his assimilation variables in arguing for the importance of sub­ cultural norms just as Lopez and Sabagh did in their structural interpretation of ethnic integration. While both studies made a conceptual step forward in allowing for differential accultura­ tion and assimilation within the minority group, the relation­ ship between measures they utilize and the underlying phenomena that these indicators are supposed to reflect is im­ perfect. If the impact on fertility of subcultural norms, socialpsychological states, socioeconomic characteristics, and struc­ tural relations between groups is to be assessed, more direct measures of each would be useful. Cooney, Rogler, and Schroder's (1981) study of Puerto Rican fertility provided some progress toward this end. Their research had two key features. First, they employed multiple measures of cultural and social assimilation, including the ones used by

32 Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory Lopez and Sabagh. Second, theirs was the first study to incor­ porate direct measures of minority group insecurity into a statistical analysis. Cooney and her associates were guided by Gordon's typology in constructing measures of three dimen­ sions of assimilation—cultural, identificational, and structural. Variables following under the cultural rubric included language usage, modernity orientation, familism, and fatalism. Identifica­ tional assimilation was measured by the degree to which women conceived of themselves as Puerto Rican or American, and struc­ tural assimilation was gauged by the ethnic composition of neighborhood and friendship circles. Three direct indicators of minority status insecurity were also obtained from questions about the belief that minority group members suffer discrimina­ tion and unfulfilled desires to live in non-Puerto Rican neighborhoods or to have non-Puerto Rican friends. Using multiple regression analysis, the authors estimated the effects of the assimilation and minority status insecurity measures on cumulative fertility net of socioeconomic and demographic control variables. Separate analyses were run for the two generations of Puerto Rican women in the total sample based on the notion that minority group status effects are more likely to appear in later generations and hence more acculturated segments of minority populations. Somewhat surprisingly, the results of the research indicated no significant effects on fertility of cultural and social assimilation net of control factors for either generational group. However, the authors did report significant negative effects of unfulfilled desires for non-Puerto Rican friends in their younger generation sample. This finding appears to support the minority group status hypothesis, but again, we might question the extent to which the variable cap­ tures the process outlined by Goldscheider and Uhlenberg. That is, desires for nonminority friends may reflect desires for ac­ culturation rather than a conscious limiting of family size in order to facilitate social mobility or to consolidate socio­ economic gains. While the Cooney, Rogler, and Schroder research incorporated some obvious refinements over previous efforts, it has its own weaknesses. Specifically, the absence of a comparable group of majority white women limits the support which the principal finding can lend to the minority group status hypothesis. Also, a

Racial and Ethnic Fertility Research: From Description to Theory

33

strict interpretation of Goldscheider and Uhlenberg's hypothesis implies that minority group status effects are most likely among those members of the group who are acculturated and who have achieved at least some degree of structural assimilation. In ac­ cordance with this interpretation, Cooney, Rogler, and Schroder might have tested for the presence of interaction effects between their social psychological variables and the variables designed to tap acculturation/assimilation and socioeconomic status. These procedures would have followed the basic research question and logic of the minority group status hypothesis more closely. Conclusion This chapter has reviewed results of the research studies de­ signed to test hypotheses about differential fertility between minority and majority groups. We have focused attention on studies dealing with Mexican Americans, although studies ex­ amining other racial/ethnic minority groups were also intro­ duced if they involved innovative methodological or theoretical approaches. In working our way through all of this material, we have seen the "state of the art" of research on differential ethnic group fertility progress from a largely descriptive enterprise to one increasingly devoted to testing hypotheses derived from theoretical frameworks relevant to questions of ethnic assimila­ tion and acculturation. This greater emphasis on theory, as limited as it might be in certain respects, provides the impetus for further theoretical development. It offers a backdrop against which new alternatives may be displayed. The task of the next chapter is to advance the formulation of such an alternative.

3. The Idea of Opportunity Costs and Minority/Majority Fertility Differences We can provide a useful overview of the research on racial and ethnic fertility by returning to the classification scheme in­ troduced at the beginning of the last chapter. Comparative studies that have contrasted the childbearing of minority and majority group women at equivalent levels of social standing share several consistencies. With respect to high-fertility minority groups (e.g., Mexican Americans and blacks), one finds only scattered evidence that minority group fertility falls substantially below that of the majority group at middle to up­ per ranges of socioeconomic attainment. However, the negative impact on fertility of socioeconomic attainment in general, and female education in particular, is more pronounced among these minority groups than is the case for the white majority.1 Thus, minority/majority fertility differentials tend to diminish with increases in social standing (see figure 3),2 but controlling for socioeconomic and demographic characteristics does not eliminate group differentials. 1. Relatively low-fertility populations such as Japanese or Cuban Americans tend to exhibit patterns of fertility by socioeconomic status more similar to those of the majority group. However, both these groups show a mean age at marriage substantially greater than that of other whites. The extent to which this pattern of deferred marriage might be a consequence of the insecurities and impediments to social mobility associated with minority group status has not been investigated (Gurak, 1978). 2. The pattern of minority/majority group fertility differentials shown in figure 3 represents the typical pattern observed when focusing on the interac­ tion of minority group status and female education. This pattern of group dif­ ferences appears to hold when minority groups with relatively high fertility are compared with the white majority. The patterns observed in figure 3 may be contrasted with those in figure 2, which correspond to Johnson's (1979) specification of the weak form of the characteristics hypothesis. Although the two figures are substantially similar, Johnson's graphic depiction of the weak form of the characteristics hypothesis implies that intergroup fertility dif­

Opportunity Costs and Minority/Majority Fertility Differences

35

Rethinking Explanations of Differential Fertility The idea most frequently advanced to explain the results of dif­ ferential fertility studies emphasizes the persistence of distinc­ tive minority subcultures. Individual minority group members may identify with and be integrated into their group's subculture and social milieu to varying degrees. If cultural influences operate to sustain higher levels of minority than majority fertili­ ty, and if the impact of these influences is strongest among the less educated segment of the minority group, then the minority/majority differences in levels and patterns of childbear­ ing can be interpreted accordingly. The emphasis on cultural ex­ planations that characterized early research on racial and ethnic fertility has clearly resurfaced with studies seeking to assess the impact of acculturation and assimilation by directly measuring various facets of ethnicity. A diverse array of indicators has been used in the analysis of Hispanic fertility with mixed results. Cooney and her associates found such indicators to be insignificant predictors of Puerto Rican fertility after controlling for socioeconomic and demographic factors. However, studies of Mexican American women consistently report significant net effects on fertility of several different measures of acculturation and assimilation. Unfortunately, the operational definitions of these concepts are frequently susceptible to structural as opposed to cultural interpretations (Marcum, 1980; Lopez and Sabagh, 1980). This situation is not surprising, given the global nature of these concepts (e.g., Teske and Nelson, 1974) and the empirical correlation between acculturation and structural assimilation processes (e.g., Frisbie and Bean, 1978). Similarly, normative and structural influences tend to be mutually rein­ forcing (Kuznets, 1973; Petersen, 1975; Yancey, Erickson, and Juliani, 1976). These conditions combine to present conceptual and methodological obstacles to the researcher who would seek ferences will disappear at the middle range of educational attainment. However, her empirical results indicate that black women with a high school education have 0.5 more children than similarly educated white women. These results along with those of Bean and Swicegood (1982) comparing Mexican American and other white fertility by female education correspond more closely to the patterns shown in figure 3.

36

Opportunity Costs and Minority/Majority Fertility Differences

to "untangle" structural and normative influences on intergroup fertility levels (e.g., Lopez and Sabagh, 1978; Gurak, 1980; Cooney, Rogler, and Schroder, 1981). Nevertheless, the issue is an important one, especially since minority group behavior has so frequently been explained in terms of subcultural norms and values. Can subcultural differences account for the Mexican Amer­ ican/other white fertility differentials that are observed after con­ trolling for socioeconomic factors? An affirmative answer to this question might appear to be forthcoming if one considered the limited data available on Mexican American family size preferences. The Austin Family Survey of 348 Mexican American couples, for example, found husbands and wives wanted an average of 4.4 children, a figure clearly higher than any estimates for the total population of American women. However, data on the expected fertility of women in the childbearing age range indicate that in 1973 Spanish origin women expected only 0.6 more births than other whites (3.2 vs. 2.6), and that substantial group differences were observed only for women with less than a high school education (U.S. Bureau

Majority Minority

SES Figure 3. Typical Patterns of Minority and Majority Group Fer­ tility by Socioeconomic Standing

Opportunity Costs and Minority/Majority Fertility Differences

37

of the Census, 1974). If mean levels of fertility expectations or preferences provide acceptable operational definitions of group norms and values with respect to family size, it would appear that the cultural explanation of higher Mexican American fertili­ ty has some merit. Goldscheider and Uhlenberg's discussion of Catholic fertility, however, argued that explaining minority group fertility as a "function of specific norms about family size and contraception appears superficial as well as inadequate," and thus a more substantive exposition of the determinants of minority group fertility requires reference to the group's broader "socio-cultural complex" (1969:369). Although Goldscheider and Uhlenberg did not go on to spell out what the salient dimensions of this might be, their work suggests that a constellation of overlapping cultural factors may partly explain differential fertility. In the case of Mexican Americans, a number of traits presumed to characterize this subculture have also been cited as potentially influencing their reproductive behavior. These include familism, fatalism, and Catholicism (Uhlenberg, 1973; Gurak, 1978). Yet there is ample reason to discount the notion that these factors alone could account for minority/majority group fertility differences. Farris and Glenn (1978) reported small differences between Mexican Americans and Anglos in San Antonio on attitudes about integration with relatives, and other researchers have also argued that the extent to which values, roles, and interaction pat­ terns characterizing Mexican American family life depart from those of the larger society has been greatly exaggerated (Alvirez, Bean, and Williams, 1982; Bean, Curtis, and Marcum, 1977; Cromwell and Ruiz, 1978; Mirande, 1977; Grebler, Moore, and Guzman, 1970). Particularly salient to any culturally based ex­ planation of differential patterns of fertility is Keefe's (1979) finding that local extended family ties are stronger among Mex­ ican Americans than among Anglos, but only among those who are most advanced with respect to generational status, accultura­ tion, and socioeconomic standing. This pattern of familism within the Mexican American population runs counter to that which would explain their fertility pattern. Evidence that fatalism can account for higher racial and ethnic fertility is equally scant. The data for San Antonio reported by Farris and

38

Opportunity Costs and Minority/Majority Fertility Differences

Glenn indicated no ethnic group differences in fatalism after controlling for the education of the respondents. Moreover, the analysis of Puerto Rican women by Cooney and her associates found no significant relationships between fatalism (or familism) and fertility before or after applying statistical con­ trols for socioeconomic determinants. Because Mexican American religious affiliation is overwhelm­ ingly Catholic and because Roman Catholic doctrine is decidedly pronatalist, Catholicism might be expected to play a role in rais­ ing the level of Mexican American fertility. Sabagh and Lopez's (1980) investigation of religiosity and fertility among Mexican American Catholics in the Los Angeles area found that religiosi­ ty does have a significant positive impact on cumulative fertili­ ty, but only for the native-born portion of their sample. Their multiple regression analyses revealed religiosity to be the strongest predictor of native-born Mexican American fertility among a set of variables including socioeconomic and demo­ graphic controls and measures of sociocultural and context ethnicity. This finding runs counter to Alvirez's (1973) similar study using the Austin Family Survey data. Alvirez concluded that institutional affiliation with the Catholic church and degree of religiosity have no substantive significant impact on wanted family size or contraceptive efficiency. Even if the results of the Sabagh and Lopez study more accurately reflect the relationship between religion and reproduction, it remains unclear that norms and values associated with Catholicism alone could ac­ count for the comparatively high levels of Mexican American fertility. Available evidence suggests that Mexican Americans are less likely to attend Mass weekly or to attend parochial schools than other Catholics, and they are also less likely to agree with the positions of the church on birth control (Grebler, Moore, and Guzman, 1970:473-477). Considered as a whole, the research on acculturation and assimilation has provided only limited insight into the merits of a cultural or normative-based theory of minority group fertility. In the case of Mexican Americans, there does not appear to be a complex of cultural traits that would serve to differentiate their fertility behavior from that of other whites. It remains unclear whether the frequently employed indicators of acculturation and assimilation are actually tapping reproductive norms or other

Opportunity Costs and Minority/Majority Fertility Differences

39

dimensions of minority group life. Furthermore, this approach does not adequately account for ethnic group differences in the pattern of childbearing by socioeconomic attainment. In the studies reviewed above, taking levels of assimilation or ac­ culturation into account did little to attenuate the strong negative impact of education on fertility. We should also note that acknowledging distinctive subgroup norms inevitably raises the important question of the origin and maintenance of these norms. Our intention, then, is not to dismiss the role of subcultural influences on fertility altogether, but rather to recognize that the emergence of and adherence to subcultural norms may be conditioned to some degree by structural rela­ tions among racial and ethnic groups (Yancey, Erickson, and Juliani, 1976). Although recent studies of racial and ethnic group fertility have incorporated increasingly sophisticated methodologies, theoretical progress has been less pronounced. In contrasting cultural and structural approaches to the explanation of demographic differences among racial and ethnic groups, Frisbie and Bean (1978:2-7) pointed out the conceptual underdevelop­ ment of both perspectives. Cooney and her associates also noted that "there is no theoretical basis for assuming that all dimen­ sions of assimilation are equally related to fertility behavior" (Cooney, Rogler, and Schroder, 1981:1099). Given the fact that Goldscheider and Uhlenberg combined cultural and structural factors into their explanation of minority group fertility, it is not surprising that Rindfuss (1980:374) characterized their formula­ tion as perhaps too ambiguous to allow empirical test.3In light of these criticisms, it is instructive to reiterate how cultural and structural perspectives theoretically link racial/ethnic group membership and differential fertility. 3. While we would agree with the general thrust of Rindfuss's argument, par­ ticularly with respect to ambiguities inherent in a "characteristics" explanation of differential racial and ethnic group fertility, we would suggest that a number of clearly testable hypotheses do follow from a careful interpretation of the minority group status perspective. However, such tests will require greater at­ tention to the specific mechanisms which are posited to link minority group status and fertility in Goldscheider and Uhlenberg's formulation. Extant data sets may not afford suitable operational definitions of all relevant factors, but some progress should be possible, even if confined to the analysis of currently available data.

40

Opportunity Costs and Minority/Majority Fertility Differences

With respect to the cultural approach, the linkage is straightforward. The primary emphasis is upon the role of values, norms, and ideology in determining fertility behavior. The above review, however, has questioned the validity of this approach on the basis of research findings that appear to be rele­ vant to assessing the cultural hypothesis. A structural perspec­ tive offers an alternative framework from which to address the basic issues surrounding differential racial and ethnic group fer­ tility. This is all the more likely if we can begin to consolidate the various insights from studies that may be categorized under the structural rubric. These would include much of the research sparked by Goldscheider and Uhlenberg, because the minority group status hypothesis specifies a mechanism serving to lower minority group fertility. This mechanism finds its conceptual grounding in the structural relations between minority and ma­ jority populations. Although the more proximate causes of depressed minority group fertility are thought to be the in­ securities and marginality experienced by individual minority group members, the theoretical locus of these socialpsychological states is the differential access of minority groups to power, resources, and channels of mobility. Unfortunately, there have been few attempts to examine directly how the theoretically relevant contextual factors (i.e., the degree of in­ tergroup inequalities) affect the levels or patterns of childbearing across subgroups.4 Furthermore, it is yet to be demonstrated em­ pirically that structural inequality generates the insecurities predicted by the minority group status hypothesis. In addition to structural inequality, another crucial element in Goldscheider and Uhlenberg's formulation has received relative­ ly little attention in studies of racial and ethnic group fertility. Minority group status effects are considered most likely in the presence of social mobility. Yet despite the continuing interest of social demographers in the relationship between social mobility and fertility (e.g., Bean and Swicegood, 1979; Stevens, 1981), only Marcum and Bean (1976) have investigated this rela­ 4. Ritchey's study of the variation in patterns of black/white fertility dif­ ferentials according to levels of racial inequality represents a notable exception.

Opportunity Costs and Minority/Majority Fertility Differences

41

tionship focusing on a specific minority group. Results of their analysis suggest that upward and downward social mobility tend to reduce childbearing among third-generation Mexican Americans. This finding accords well with the minority group status hypothesis, and an extension of this line of inquiry to other subgroups would be worthwhile. For example, it would be useful to determine if the magnitude and direction of mobility effects on fertility vary across minority and majority groups, and if there is significant variation in the proportion of socioeconomically mobile persons at different levels of socioeconomic standing across these subgroups. These analyses could then allow for a more informed interpretation of group dif­ ferences in the pattern of childbearing observed in comparative studies by providing a means of assessing the contribution of mobility effects to these differential patterns. A structural perspective on minority group status and fertility of the sort just outlined suggests that hypotheses concerning in­ tergroup inequalities and social mobility require further in­ vestigation. Quite possibly the increased interest in accultura­ tion and assimilation demonstrated in recent research has served to overshadow these ideas, thus illustrating again the difficulties involved in combining normative and structural explanations into a theoretical framework susceptible to empirical verifica­ tion. Perhaps a more compelling reason for the theoretical ambigui­ ty in the study of racial and ethnic group fertility may be found in the lack of articulation between insights derived from the race and ethnic relations literature on the one hand and an explicit theory of reproductive behavior on the other. This becomes clearer if one recognizes that the "social characteristics" hypothesis has served as the benchmark against which struc­ tural and subcultural effects on fertility have been gauged. However, the characteristics hypothesis itself has not been ex­ pressed as a cohesive theoretical statement. Consequently, if significant group differences in childbearing remain after con­ trolling for a set of social characteristics, as is often the case in comparative studies, the argument can always be made that "not enough characteristics, the wrong characteristics or improperly

42

Opportunity Costs and Minority/Majority Fertility Differences

measured characteristics have been used" (Gurak, 1980:222).5 Our evaluation of the research attempting to clarify and test the minority group status hypothesis has to some degree demonstrated this point. Nevertheless, the basic assumption behind the social characteristics hypothesis may be quite sound. This assumption is that the factors and processes determining fer­ tility outcomes are the same for all racial and ethnic groups. Ideally, we would like to arrive at an explanation of fertility behavior that would treat women of all subgroups within the same general model. To do so would require restating the cur­ rently vague characteristics hypothesis in terms of the ideas of some specific theoretical framework.- Such a framework need not ignore the dual emphasis of minority group status research on structural inequalities and acculturation/assimilation, but rather might serve to suggest the plausible causal chains through which these factors operate to influence fertility. In this sense, a theoretically grounded analogue to the characteristics hypothesis could guide the identification of individual and group characteristics that are most likely to affect racial and ethnic group differences in childbearing. In the rest of this chapter, we draw upon economic and sociological theories in sketching a framework for the analysis of Mexican American fer­ tility that emphasizes the position of members of the minority group in relation to access to the opportunity structure of the larger society. Differential Opportunity Structures The approach to be outlined below should not be seen as stand­ ing in opposition to earlier perspectives, but rather as com­ plementing them, in that it does not involve the introduction of new conceptual factors to explain fertility differences. Instead it attempts to synthesize theoretical elements from several sources into a framework suitable for application to an investigation of 5. We would argue that the "right" characteristics should be derived from some explicit theory of fertility. Actual tests of the characteristics hypothesis should then involve equating groups on theoretically relevant factors rather than a set of social characteristics.

Opportunity Costs and Minority/Majority Fertility Differences

43

the determinants of racial/ethnic fertility behavior in general, and Mexican American fertility behavior in particular. The con­ ceptual basis of the framework is found in the microeconomic analysis of the allocation of time and resources at the household level (e.g., Becker, I960; Schultz, 1981). Recent applications of the economic approach to fertility research focus on the oppor­ tunity costs associated with childbearing and rearing (Bean, 1975), but the levels and patterns of racial and ethnic group fer­ tility in the United States have seldom been explicitly examined in such terms. Opportunity costs have frequently been express­ ed in terms of individual or household human capital. By utiliz­ ing insights from the sociological literature, we recast the basic argument here in a form more compatible with an emphasis on structural factors. Thus, the framework proposed below represents something of a departure from previous work in this area. Economic theory and opportunity costs o f childbearing. Economic theories of fertility suggest that children may be treated in part as consumer goods. Hence, demand for children (and material goods, leisure, etc.) can be analyzed as a function of the traditional economic variables of income and price (Becker, I960).6Couples' fertility behavior is thought to reflect conscious decisions that maximize household utility subject to the con­ straints of the aforementioned variables. Two predictions follow from this framework. Other things being equal, an in­ crease in income results in higher fertility, and an increase in the price of children relative to other goods results in lower fertility. While Becker's initial formulation and subsequent elaborations by the "new home economists" have generated a variety of criticisms on theoretical, methodological, and empirical grounds (see Turchi, 1975), sociologists and economists alike continue to cite the opportunity cost of children as an important determi­ nant of completed family size (Turchi, 1975; Holsinger and Kasarda, 1976; Gurak, 1978; Mason and Palan, 1981; Cramer, 1979; Smith-Lovin and Tickamyer, 1978). 6. Easterlin's (1969) attempt to synthesize sociological and economic theories of fertility into a single framework gives tastes for children equal theoretical weight in the demand functions for children. Tastes or preferences for children are closely related to what sociologists treat as family size norms, but they are treated relative to tastes for material goods rather than independent­ ly.

44

Opportunity Costs and Minority/Majority Fertility Differences

Economists have developed the opportunity costs concept as part of the total price of children. The basic argument, as in­ troduced by Mincer (1963), is that children require substantial investments of time by mothers. Consequently, women forego earnings during the period in which childbearing and childrear­ ing activities are carried out. The opportunity costs of these ac­ tivities can be imputed as a function of the wife's potential earn­ ings. Among the many possible indicators of income, economists generally agree that potential income is the most relevant to fertility decision making. Thus, the wife's potential earnings might be expected to exert a positive income effect as well as a negative "substitution," or opportunity cost effect on fertility. Mincer's (1963) estimation of the magnitude of these two possible influences suggested that the opportunity cost ef­ fect has relatively greater impact. While wage rates are often used to index potential earnings, the amount of time invested in childbearing and rearing is also important (Cramer, 1979). In this sense, the type of work available to women may also in­ fluence opportunity costs (Cochrane, 1979). That is, different opportunity costs are associated with full-time and part-time jobs. The distinction can also be made between access to oc­ cupations characterized by temporary work and those featuring more stability and requiring continuous long-term employment for advancement. Therefore, opportunity costs may be expected to be determined in part by the likelihood that women will ob­ tain employment in the primary versus secondary labor markets (Gordon, 1972) or in the core versus periphery sector of the economy (Beck, Horan, and Tolbert, 1978; 1980). The role incom patibility hypothesis. Sociologists have developed a theme similar to the opportunity costs concept in an attempt to explain the relationship between female labor force participation and fertility (Stycos and Weller, 1967; Mason and Palan, 1981).7 Termed the "role incom patibility" hypothesis, this approach complements microeconomic theory by specifying institutional factors which condition the effects of 7. The negative price effect of opportunity costs on fertility hypothesized by microeconomic theory obviously assumes some degree of incompatibility be­ tween the maternal and work roles. Otherwise the potential earnings of wives would be expected to exert only a positive income effect on fertility.

Opportunity Costs and Minority/Majority Fertility Differences

45

labor supply on childbearing and vice versa. The two factors which have received the most attention in this regard are the organization of production and the organization of childcare (Mason and Palan, 1981; Smith-Lovin and Tickamyer, 1978; Bean, Swicegood, and King, 1985). Modem industrial forms of production are posited to foster increased incom­ patibility between the roles of working and mothering for several reasons. Employment is relocated from the home to an external workplace as household production units become less important and as individuals increasingly sell their labor to larger enterprises. Under these conditions, work schedules are typically more rigid, and children are less susceptible to mater­ nal supervision. The organization of childcare is thought to in­ fluence the work/fertility relationship by determining the cost of alternative childcare. These costs are contingent upon local labor market conditions (Stolzenberg and Waite, 1981) and the availability of parental surrogates such as older relatives or older children (Mason and Palan, 1981; Bean, Swicegood, and King, 1985). Considered as a whole, these ideas suggest a framework for the analysis of racial and ethnic fertility that focuses on the oppor­ tunity structures facing minority households (Mason and Palan, 1981). Of particular importance is the type of work and the level of wages which are accessible to minority group women, because these will affect to a considerable extent the opportunity costs of children. From this perspective, reproductive behavior is in­ fluenced by the individual human capital variables that deter­ mine the earnings potential of women, as well as by structural factors which mediate their ability to translate human capital in­ to earnings. The opportunity costs idea offers a plausible explanation of the overall higher fertility levels of Mexican American and other minority group women as compared to that of majority whites, because minority women clearly lack equivalent levels of human capital and furthermore are subject to varying degrees of social and economic discrimination.8It also suggests an explana8. There is strong inferential evidence that Mexican American males (Poston and Alvirez, 1973; Poston, Alvirez, and Tienda 1976; Tienda and Neidert, 1981a; 1981b) and females (Guhleman, 1981; Tienda and Guhleman, 1981) suffer discrimination with regard to occupational and income attainment.

46

Opportunity Costs and Minority/Majority Fertility Differences

tion of the comparatively sharper negative impact of female education on fertility among many minority groups. The observed pattern would occur if less educated minority women face greater discrimination and have less human capital than equivalently educated whites. The result would be comparative­ ly lower opportunity costs for less educated minority women, and thus higher fertility. At higher levels of schooling Mexican American fertility is quite similar to that of the majority. This might be expected for several reasons. First, education may be a more accurate indicator of human capital at higher levels. Se­ cond, highly educated minority women may face less discrimination in the labor market than their less educated counterparts.9 Even if highly educated Mexican American women were confined to an ethnically homogenous labor market, they are such a small proportion of the total Mexican American population that their skills may be especially valuable within the ethnic community, and thus raise their opportunity costs to a level commensurate with that of similarly educated white women.10 In sum, opportunity costs are unlikely to be similarly distributed across educational categories among minority women as compared to majority women. This could account for the stronger negative relationship between education and fertility observed among minority women. The perspective of differential opportunity costs might also shed light on the difference between Mexican Americans and other whites in recent trends in period fertility. The trends for the two groups since the early 1950s are quite similar in form, leading Rindfuss and Sweet (1977) to suggest that the two populations are responding to similar factors. However, it has been noted that period fluctuations in Mexican American fertili9. Poston and Alvirez (1973) have estimated that the absolute earnings gap between Mexican American and Anglo men is greatest at the higher levels of educational attainment, but the relative income difference between the two groups is greatest at the lowest level of education. If this pattern of relative dif­ ferences in income holds true for women, some support would be evidenced for the notion that the impact of discrimination on actual opportunity costs falls disproportionately on less educated Mexican American women. 10. Affirmative action programs might have a similar effect, if their impact disproportionately aids higher educated minority women.

Opportunity Costs and Minority/Majority Fertility Differences

47

ty have not been as pronounced as those for the country as a whole (Browning, 1974). These patterns would be expected if op­ portunity costs play a significant role in period fertility rates (e.g., Butz and Ward, 1979) and if Mexican Americans are not well integrated into prevailing opportunity structures. Certainly this explanation is plausible and reflects the potential ap­ plicability of this perspective to longitudinal as well as crosssectional differentials. At this point we can briefly reiterate the fact that an analytical framework centered upon access to opportunity structures covers much of the theoretical ground previously advanced in the social characteristics and minority group status hypotheses. With respect to the latter, it recognizes that structural relations between groups may influence their reproductive behavior, but it specifies opportunity costs rather than social-psychological in­ securities as the mechanism through which this influence works. Similar to the characteristics hypothesis and other assimilationist approaches, it assumes that the same factors in­ fluence the childbearing decisions of individual minority and majority women. Structural conditions, however, are expected to mediate the impact on fertility of education, occupation, and the like in such a way as to make simple controls for these variables an inadequate test of the characteristics hypothesis. Next we outline a number of research hypotheses that follow from this perspective. Language Usage and Fertility Language usage has long been cited as an important indicator of acculturation and ethnic identity (Samora and Deane, 1956; Gor­ don, 1964; Lieberson, 1970; Richard, 1974; Lopez and Sabagh, 1978), but in a country where a knowledge of English is in­ dispensable for access to most segments of the labor market, it must be considered a human capital variable as well (Tienda, 1980; Portes and Bach, 1980; Chiswick, 1978). This interpreta­ tion has received ample empirical support in several recent studies of Mexican American earnings and occupational attain­ ment (Garcia, 1979: Cooney and Ortiz, 1981; Tienda and Neidert, 198 la; 1981b; Guhleman, Tienda, and Bowman, 1981).

48

Opportunity Costs and Minority/Majority Fertility Differences

English language usage and proficiency have both been found to exert a net positive effect on the earning and occupational placements of Mexican American males and females. Also, language differences, even if they entail only differences in ac­ cent, can serve to maintain boundaries between groups (Barth, 1969) and elicit negative reactions and perhaps discriminatory behavior toward a minority group (Ryan and Carranza, 1977). Together these notions suggest that the opportunity costs associated with childbearing should be higher for women with better English language skills. Thus, it may be hypothesized that English language proficiency, as well as the tendency to use predominantly English, will be negatively associated with Mex­ ican American fertility. An empirical test of these hypotheses with a nationally representative sample of Mexican Americans should prove worthwhile, given the limited amount of research on this rela­ tionship. Although Cooney and her associates (1981) found no significant impact of language usage on Puerto Rican fertility, the results of Lopez and Sabagh's (1978) study of Mexican American women in Los Angeles suggest that the relationship may vary across Hispanic origin groups. Somewhat surprisingly, Lopez and Sabagh reported that Spanish language usage at home and Spanish media usage were negatively related to the number of children ever bom to women in their sample even after con­ trols were introduced for socioeconomic and demographic fac­ tors. Such results would not be anticipated from an opportunity costs or normative approach, and the research results presented here will provide a chance to see if their findings can be replicated. It may be that their Los Angeles sample is not representative of the total Mexican American population. Earlier we discussed the difficulties involved in discerning the independent effects of cultural versus structural factors on minority group behavior. These difficulties will also apply to the interpretation of language effects on fertility. English language usage among Mexican Americans may imply lower fer­ tility, because it reflects acculturation with respect to majority group childbearing norms. On the other hand, it may reflect the influence of opportunity cost factors. Some analytical leverage may be applied to this problem by simultaneously considering language usage and proficiency. The two factors represent

Opportunity Costs and Minority/Majority Fertility Differences

49

separate, albeit correlated, domains of linguistic behavior (Bowman, 1981). From the opportunity costs perspective, English proficiency should be the key language, factor in deter­ mining potential earnings and occupational position. If a Mex­ ican American is proficient in English, the ability or preference to use Spanish in certain situations should not influence oppor­ tunity costs except perhaps to increase them under cir­ cumstances where bilingualism represents additional human capital. Several alternative hypotheses that focus on the fertility behavior of bilingual Mexican American women are implied by this reasoning. If, for example, bilinguals have higher fertility net of English proficiency and other relevant controls, this would suggest tentative indirect support for an independent ef­ fect of subcultural norms favoring high fertility. On the other hand, a net inverse effect of bilingualism might be interpreted in at least two ways. It may be that bilingual skills enhance the earning potential of Mexican Americans (Lopez, 1976), and thus raise their opportunity costs. However, another possible inter­ pretation for such an effect is evident in the literature on the cor­ relates of blingualism. Some researchers have noted that bi­ lingualism may be associated with insécurités that derive from incomplete assimilation into either minority or majority society (Edwards, 1977; Fishman, 1978).11 In the process of obtaining facility in two different languages, less than fluent command of either can lead to criticism from peers, parents, and teachers, thus reinforcing insecurities (Murgia, 1975; Ryan and Carranza, 1977). Following the reasoning of Goldscheider and Uhlenberg, we might expect bilinguals to reduce their fertility accordingly. Beyond these hypothesized additive effects, the opportunity costs perspective provides a basis for predicting interaction ef­ fects between generational status and English language usage and proficiency and two important determinants of fer­ tility—education and female labor force participation. Educa­ tion is often taken as an indicator of opportunity costs. From 11. Research into the consequences of bilingualism in general, and bilingual education in particular, remains a controversial area. Some studies point to negative psychological, cognitive, and social outcomes, while others are sug­ gestive of positive effects or none at all (see Lopez, 1976; Garcia, 1981). It seems likely that whatever the consequences, they are largely conditioned by factors exogenous to the cognitive processes of language acquisition and maintenance.

50

Opportunity Costs and Minority/Majority Fertility Differences

the standpoint of our analytical framework, a potential source of racial and ethnic group differences in the pattern of education ef­ fects lies in group differences in the ability to translate education into labor market or other extra familial rewards. Generational and language heterogeneity may further differentiate the minori­ ty population on precisely this factor. Mexican American women who are immigrants and who possess less than excellent English skills may be unable to convert their education into fur­ ther opportunities. Even if their English proficiency is fully ade­ quate for the task, anything less than standard English may rein­ force their ethnicity in the mind of employers and lead to subtle discrimination. Women whose families have been in the coun­ try the longest and who are most proficient in English should be best able to convert education into potential earnings. Therefore, the opportunity costs associated with additional education should be greater for these women. This leads to the hypothesis that the later the generational status or the greater the English proficiency and usage among Mexican American women, the greater the negative impact of education on their fertility. Similar reasoning underlies the prediction of an interaction ef­ fect between the language variables and labor force participation. If opportunity costs are higher for English-speaking Mexican American women, then labor force participation should have a more depressing effect on their fertility than would be the case among Spanish-speaking women. The latter are more likely to be in jobs characterized as secondary or peripheral. Some em­ pirical support for this assumption is found in the work of Tienda and Guhleman (1981). They reported that among Mex­ ican American women in the labor force, those speaking predominantly English are more likely to have worked full time and continuously during the preceding year. Another reason for expecting a less negative relationship between labor force par­ ticipation and fertility among less English proficient women is that, for some of these women, the causal relationship between work and childbearing may be reversed.12 That is, the birth of a 12. The empirical analyses to follow treat female employment as an in­ dependent variable and cumulative fertility as the dependent variable. This raises certain questions about model specification with respect to the temporal and causal ordering of these two particular variables. These questions are ad­ dressed in a methodological discussion in chapter 6.

Opportunity Costs and Minority/Majority Fertility Differences

51

child may require additional resources that necessitate the mother obtaining whatever type of employment is available. Under these circumstances the relationship between fertility and female labor force participation is positive. This situation is all the more likely if the limited opportunity structure faced by the wife applies to her spouse and other household members as well (Mason and Palan, 1981). The research proposed here deals with a crucial dimension of Mexican American life, but the specific hypotheses advanced to this point do not exhaust the ideas inherent in the opportunity costs framework. Observed relationships between language and childbearing may be subject to modification by other factors. For example, generational status and English language proficiency and preference may represent less in the way of human capital assets in settings where parallel ethnic institutions are well developed. Ethnic enclaves may mitigate the need for even a minimal level of English proficiency (Portes and Bach, 1980) and, from a different perspective, serve to intensify adherence to subgroup norms. This consideration points out a possible avenue for further research, as well as illustrating once again the thorny issue of cultural versus structural approaches. Despite this and other limitations, this monograph represents an initial effort to develop the conceptual underpinnings of an alternative framework within which to analyze minority group fertility in general and Mexican American fertility in particular.

4. Sources of Data and Methodological Considerations

The purposes of this chapter are (1) to describe the data that we use to investigate Mexican American fertility patterns and (2) to discuss a number of methodological considerations that bear upon the measurement of variables, the structure of the analysis, or the interpretation of results. We employ three sets of national data in our analyses: 1970 U.S. Census data, data from the 1976 Survey of Income and Education, and 1980 U.S. Census data. Each of these data sets has certain unique features that make it especially relevant to our purposes. Each also involves certain disadvantages. In this chapter we discuss these strengths and weaknesses and emphasize the point that no single data set taken by itself provides as complete a picture of Mexican American fertility patterns as do all three taken together.

The Different Data Sets The 1970 U.S. Census data. The 1970 Census microdata con­ sists of six 1-in-100 Public Use Sample (PUS) files based on 1 percent samples of households in the country (one sample each based on the 5-percent and 15-percent questionnaires ad­ ministered by the Census, for each of three areal units—states, county groupings, and neighborhoods).1 We use both the state and neighborhood files in this research. Because we are in­ terested in analyzing fertility by nativity status, and because at the beginning of our research we wanted to allow for the possibility of comparing our results with those obtained using the Spanish-sumame identifier of the Mexican American popula­ 1. For further information on the 1970 and 1980 United States Census Public Use Samples, the reader is referred to the technical documentation manuals (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1972; 1983b).

Sources of Data and Methodological Considerations

53

tion, we based the analyses reported in chapter 5 on the 15 per­ cent state file. Only the 15 percent questionnaire contained data from the nativity question and only the state file allowed the five southwestern states in which the Spanish-sumame iden­ tifier was used to be analyzed separately. As it turns out, we do not present results based on the Spanish-sumame identifier because they are essentially the same as those obtained with the broader identifier. The analyses reported in chapter 7 involve switching to one of the Neighborhood Characteristics files (15 percent question­ naire). The reason for using the 15 percent file was again that it contains information on birthplace of parents, thus permitting a three-generational breakdown of the population. The reason for selecting one of the neighborhood files was that we wanted to use contextual as well as individual characteristics to measure access to the opportunity structure of the larger society. The 1970 neighborhood files are uniquely valuable in this regard because they are the only Census microfiles from the 1960, the 1970, or the 1980 Censuses that include information on the geographical area in which the household is located. In comparison to the 1976 SIE and to 1980 Census data, the most unique feature of the 1970 data for purposes of our analysis is that they contain information from a question on birthplace of parents. With the 1970 data, it is thus possible to ascertain whether native-born women had native-born or foreign-born parents. Stated differently, it is possible to develop a threegenerational breakdown of the Mexican American population. This is not possible with the 1976 SIE or with the 1980 Census data because neither contains questions on birthplace of parents. The 1976 SIE data. The data from the 1976 SIE are based on a stratified, multi-state cluster sample of approximately 151,200 households in the United States.2 The reason the government conducted the SIE was to provide a data set large enough to estimate the number of persons living below the poverty level on a state-by-state basis. Hence, the SIE included about two-anda-half to three times as many households as are usually included 2. For additional information on the sampling design, the reader is referred to the technical documentation of the 1976 SIE (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1977).

54 Sources of Data and Methodological Considerations in the monthly Current Population Surveys conducted by the Bureau of the Census. What this means for the purposes of this research is that the sample of households is large enough to yield a sufficiently sizable group of Mexican American households to make possible an analysis of fertility behavior of Mexican American women. The major unique feature of the SIE data, in comparison to the data from the decennial censuses, is the richness of detail available on patterns of language usage and proficiency. The 1970 Census data contain only information on "mother tongue," or the language spoken in the home when the person was grow­ ing up. The 1980 Census data include information on English proficiency as assessed by answers to a question on "how well a person speaks English." English proficiency was ascertained on­ ly for those persons indicating that they used a language other than English at home. Actually, only a few words of non-English might be used at home to solicit a positive response to this ques­ tion, and no information was obtained about usage in contexts other than the home. The SIE, however, contains information both on how well a person understood English and on how well he or she spoke English. In addition, information is available on whether the person actually used English or Spanish or both languages on a regular basis. Given our interest in studying the relationship between English proficiency and usage on the one hand and fertility patterns on the other, the SIE affords the greatest opportunity to investigate such relationship because of the richness of detail available on language measures. The 1980 U.S. Census data. Several Public Use Micro Sample (PUMS) files have been issued based on the 1980 Census (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1983b). The data included in this research are from the A-file, which is a sample of 5 percent of households in the United States. The major advantage of the 1980 data for the purposes of this research is currency—they constitute the most up-to-date source of information to study Mexican American fertility patterns. The major disadvantage is that they do not offer the possibility of a three-generational breakdown of Mexican Americans as do the 1970 data, nor is information available on the characteristics of neighborhoods as is the case with the 1970 data. And the 1980 data do not offer as much

Sources of Data and Methodological Considerations

55

detail on language variables as do the 1976 SIE data. Hence, the 1970 data and the 1976 data provide better bases for studying the relationship between assimilation variables and fertility, whereas the 1980 data provide the most up-to-date information on such relationships, even though less detail is available. Sample Delimitation In the chapters to follow, we basically present two kinds of analyses—those that compare the fertility patterns of Mexican American women with those of other white women, and those that examine variations in fertility patterns within the Mexican American population. The former provide an indication of the extent to which groups of Mexican American women are similar to groups of other white women in their fertility behavior. They are thus useful gauges of assimilation with respect to fertility behavior. The latter kind of analyses provide an indication of the factors associated with fertility among Mexican American women, and thus point to clues about what might facilitate or impede further convergence in fertility patterns between the two populations. In the between-group analyses, the research compares a designated Mexican American group with a designated group of other whites from each data source. Ethnicity is defined from the point of view of women. In the case of the SIE data, the Mexican American group is defined as women who responded as "Mexican American," "Chicano," "Mexican," or "Mexicano" to a self-report ethnicity question. The other white group is de­ fined as all other whites not of Hispanic origin. Because the purpose of the SIE was to provide estimates of the number of children living in poverty on a state-by-state basis, appropriate sample weights are applied to make the results representative (within the limits of sampling error) of the national population.3 In the case of the 1970 Census data, we define Mexican Americans in either of two ways. The first is according to the 3. All results are weighted so as to be representative of the national popula­ tion. After weighting, a constant scale factor was applied in order to make the overall weighted sample identical in size to the overall unweighted one.

56 Sources of Data and Methodological Considerations Census designation "Spanish American," with the exception that Spanish Americans in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania (all of whom, according to Census procedure, were of Puerto Rican stock) are not included. In the five Southwestern states (Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas), persons designated by the Census as Spanish American include persons of Spanish language (persons reporting Spanish as their mother tongue, as well as persons in families in which the head or wife reported Spanish as his or her mother tongue), or persons not of Spanish language but of Spanish-sumame. In the remain­ ing states, Spanish Americans include persons of Spanish language.4 The second is according the Census question on Mex­ ican descent. That is, all non-Spanish Americans who indicated that either they or their parents were bom in Mexico are includ­ ed. Other whites are defined as all other whites not of Hispanic origin. A 1-in-2,000 sample of households is utilized for this group, whereas the entire 1-in-100 sample is utilized for the Mex­ ican American group. In the case of the 1980 Census data, we define Mexican Americans according to the Census question on Spanish origin, including all women who self-identified as being of Mexican origin. Interestingly, the 1980 Census probably counted over 1 million undocumented immigrants, a group not enumerated in the 1970 Census or included in the SIE (Warren and Passel, 1984; Bean, Browning, and Frisbie, 1984). Hence, when interpreting results based on the 1980 data that compare the fertility of foreign-born and native-born Mexican origin women, we need to remember that the former group contains a sizable number of il­ legal migrants.

Partitioning Mexican American Women According to Generation One of our major purposes is to examine fertility differentials between other whites and generational groups within the Mex­ ican American population. Generational groups are delineated 4. This criterion means that some unknown number of Spanish Americans of non-Mexican origin outside the Southwest are included in the sample.

Sources of Data and Methodological Considerations

57

on the basis of questions on the nativity of women and, where available, their parents' nativity. In the case of the SIE data, it is possible to divide Mexican Americans into those bom in Mex­ ico and those bom in the United States. In the case of the 1970 Census data, nativity information available from the 15 percent questionnaire enables a three-generational classification. Women are distinguished according to whether they were bom in Mexico (first-generation), whether they were bom in the United States but one or both of their parents were bom in Mex­ ico (second-generation), or whether they and their parents were bom in the United States (third-generation or higher). In the case of the 1980 Census data, women are divided according to whether they were bom in Mexico or in the United States. Measures of Fertility Analyses are conducted for measures of both current and cumulative fertility. The distinction between current and cumulative fertility is closely related to the difference between period and cohort fertility. By cohort fertility demographers mean the cumulative childbearing of a group of women bom or married at or about the same time. Period fertility, on the other hand, refers to the childbearing of all women at a given point in time, irrespective of cohort. The two conceptions are not the same, because the latter may fluctuate as a result of aggregate changes in the timing of fertility independently of the eventual level of completed fertility achieved by a cohort. We began this research nearly three years before the 1980 PUMS data were scheduled to be released. In fact, we expected to be finished with the project and with this monograph before they were released. Because of this, and because of our interest in utilizing the language detail available in the SIE, we fully ex­ pected the SIE data to constitute the predominant focus of this research. While the SIE data still provide a major source of our information on fertility patterns, this is less the case than when we began. Unfortunately, the SIE did not include a question on "the number of children ever bom," a major source of informaHowever, the number of such persons is not very large. Only 15.2 percent of the sample comes from outside the Southwest; a majority of these are of Mexican origin.

58

Sources of Data and Methodological Considerations

tion on fertility. Hence, as we elaborate below, we had to con­ struct alternative measures of fertility in the case of the SIE data. The 1970 and 1980 Census data, of course, did include informa­ tion on the number of children ever bom. However, in the case of the 1970 and 1980 data, we use in every instance but one the same constructed measures as we did in the case of the 1976 data in order to achieve comparability among all three data sets. In the case of the within-group analysis presented in chapter 7, which is based only on 1970 data because it involves the ex­ amination of neighborhood characteristics, we use the more con­ ventional children-ever-bom measure. As just noted, the SIE did not ask any questions that directly pertained to fertility behavior. However, data were available on the ages of household members and on family relationships among household members. On this basis, an allocative scheme was developed to assign children to mothers within the household. Details of these procedures are described in Appen­ dix A. For reasons elaborated below, only those children under the age of 15 are considered candidates for inclusion in the fer­ tility measures. This allocation of children to mothers, together with data on the ages of children and women, permits the derivation of measures of current and cumulative fertility that are analogous to so-called own-children estimates of fertility rates (Grabill and Cho, 1965; Retherford and Cho, 1978; Rindfuss and Sweet, 1977). However, the present research does not use such ag­ gregate rates in analyses. Rather, in order to conduct individual level multivariate analyses, the number of children under age 15 is used as a measure of cumulative fertility and the number of children under age 3 is employed as a measure of current fertili­ ty. Since the measures are calculated with respect to individual women, they may not be used for the same purpose as aggregate own-children-based rates. They may be viewed as individuallevel counterparts to what Grabill and Cho (1965) termed "child/woman" ratios. Thus, they do not involve attempts to ad­ just for mortality or underenumeration, adjustments that are often made in deriving annual fertility rates based on census

Sources of Data and Methodological Considerations

59

own-children data (Rindfuss and Sweet, 1977).5 Some of the assumptions involved in calculating ownchildren annual rates, however, apply to these measures. As enumerated by Rindfuss and Sweet (1977:11), four implicit assumptions underlie such fertility rates based on survey data: "(1) that ages of children and women are correctly reported; (2) that all children reside with their mothers; (3) that mortality is negligible for women and children,- and (4) that all women and children are covered by the census." Since we are concerned with the assessment of subgroup fertility differences, the ques­ tion of the extent to which these assumptions differentially apply to Mexican Americans and to other whites is crucial. To a considerable degree, the reliance of the measures on the ages 0-14 and 0-2 alleviates much of the concern about the first assumption. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that differences in age misreporting on the part of Mexican Americans and other whites could appreciably affect fertility differences, given the broad age ranges over which the measures are computed. Com­ parisons of fertility differences based on the measures, however, rest on the assumption that differential mortality does not ap­ preciably bias the results. That is, it is assumed that maternal mortality is not differentially related to age of mother or to pari­ ty. Also, it is assumed that differential coverage is not related to age or parity. However, to the extent that female mortality among Mexican Americans is higher than it is among other whites, estimates of fertility differences between Mexican Americans other whites should be understated. It is also of interest to ask whether the information available in the SIE data on the ages of children in the household and on family relationships provides a satisfactory reflection of period fertility in the United States at the time of the survey. In order to answer this question, age-specific fertility rates are estimated by accumulating the number of children under age 1 for five-year age groups of women; and these are compared with recorded 5. Rindfuss and Sweet (1977), nonetheless, argued that unadjusted rates pro­ vide as satisfactory a basis for examining fertility trends as adjusted rates do.

60

Sources of Data and Methodological Considerations

vital statistics rates for 1975 and 1976.6 These estimates are computed for whites only because rates based on vital statistics data are not reported separately for women of Hispanic origin. The results are presented in table 4-1. Several points are noteworthy. The first is that the comparability of the SIEderived and the reported vital statistics rates varies considerably by age. In particular, the SIE rates fall below the vital statistics rates at lower ages and exceed them at higher ages. As is usually the case with own-children data, this probably reflects the in­ fluence of age-related adoption patterns (i.e., the tendency for younger women to give up children for adoption to older women) (Rindfuss and Sweet, 1977; Retherford and Cho, 1978). Within the age range 20-34, however, the rates derived from the SIE data more closely approximate the vital statistics rates, vary­ ing from 92 percent to 108 percent of the reported rates. Given that among whites about 95 percent of own children aged 0-16 years reside with their mothers (Rindfuss and Sweet, 1977), it ap­ pears that the information contained in the SIE on the ages and family relationships among household members provides a reasonable reflection of period fertility for women aged 20-34. It is impossible to make this same kind of comparison for Hispanics and other whites separately because published vital statistics do not report rates separately for Hispanics. However, information relevant to the question whether Hispanics (the ma­ jority of whom are Mexican Americans) and other whites generate fertility measures of similar quality from data in the SIE can be addressed by comparing the SIE-derived measure of cumulative fertility with published Current Population Survey (CPS) data for 1976 on children ever bom. These comparisons are presented in panel II of table 4-4, for ever-married women. The measure of cumulative fertility derived from the SIE data is the number of children in the family under age 15. Because of the truncation at age 15, the SIE measures will necessarily be lower than the CPS values at the upper age ranges. Hence, it is again 6. Most of the SIE interviews were conducted in May and June 1976. Hence, children under the age of 1 would have been bom in either 1975 or 1976. The estimates computed in the present research are adjusted on the basis of the assumption that birthdays of mothers are evenly distributed throughout the calendar year.

Sources of Data and Methodological Considerations

61

appropriate to concentrate attention on the 20-34 age bracket. Within this age range, the SIE-based measure represents over 90.0 percent of the children ever bom as reported by the 1976 CPS. More importantly, the figures are about the same for white women and for women of Hispanic origin. Among ever-married white women aged 20-34, women in the SIE show 1,455 children under age 15 per 1,000 women, a figure that represents 93.0 per­ cent of the number of children ever bom per 1,000 women as reported by the CPS. The comparable figure for ever-married women of Hispanic origin is 90.6 percent. Hence, it appears that information from the SIE provides a nearly identical depiction of cumulative fertility for women of Hispanic origin as compared to white women. This information is also relevant to the question whether there exists a difference between Mexican Americans and other whites in the tendency for children to reside with their mothers. While this question cannot be answered definitively with the present results because women of Mexican origin are only a subgroup of women of Spanish origin, it seems likely that only a small difference exists, if any. Addi­ tional data on this issue are presented below. In the case of the 1970 PUS and 1980 PUMS data, com­ parisons are also made of PUS- and PUMS-derived fertility rates (based upon the number of own children under age 1 with record­ ed vital statistics rates), and of the number of own children under age 15 with the number of children ever bom. While similar comparisons have been presented by Rindfuss and Sweet (1977) for the 1970 data, the comparisons with recorded vital statistics rates are repeated here in order to provide a partial check on the adequacy of the allocation procedures used to assign children to mothers (see Appendix A). Also, the com­ parisons with data on children ever bom yield somewhat dif­ ferent information from those reported by Rindfuss and Sweet, who note a 2 percent difference between urban white and Mexican origin women who report the same number of own children as children ever bom (Rindfuss and Sweet, 1977:28). The results of the comparisons are presented in tables 4-2, 4-3, and panels I and III of table 4-4. For the age range of 20-34, the 1970 PUS- and 1980 PUMS-derived age-specific fertility rates vary between about 92 percent and 99 percent of the rates record­ ed by vital statistics in the case of the 1970 data and between

62

Sources of Data and Methodological Considerations

about 97 percent and 125 percent in the case of the 1980 data. The figure for women aged 30-34 is somewhat higher than is desirable, but it probably stems from the prevalence of adoption at these ages. Overall, at ages 20-34, the 1980 derived rate is about 105 percent of the vital statistics rate. Table 4-1: 1976 SIE Estimated Fertility Rates and 1976 and 1975 Recorded Vital Statistics Rates: Whites

Ages 1 5 -1 9 2 0 -2 4 2 5 -2 9 3 0 -3 4 3 5 -3 9 4 0 -4 4 TFRa

SIE

Vital Statisticsb

1976

1975

33.9 99.7 99.9 56.5 19.6 3.7 1566.5

46.8 109.7 110.0 52.1 18.1 4.1 1704.0

1976 44.6 107.0 108.4 53.5 17.7 3.8 1675.0

Ratio of SIE to Vital Statistics 1975

1976

.724 .909 .908 1.084 1.083 .902 .919

.760 .932 .922 1.056 1.107 .974 .935

NOTE: Includes Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban origin. aTotal Fertility Rates based on women 15-44 only. bSource: Vital Statistics o f the United States, 1975, vol. 1; " Final Natality Statistics, 1976."

Table 4-2: 1970 PUS Estimated Fertility Rates and 1969 Recorded Vital Statistics Rates: W hites

Ages

PUS 1970

Vital Statistics13 1969

Ratio of PUS to Vital Statistics

1 5 -1 9 2 0 -2 4 2 5 -2 9 3 0 -3 4 3 5 -3 9 4 0 -4 4 TFRa

39.8 148.7 138.5 71.7 37.4 11.7 2.239

55.2 161.4 142.8 72.0 31.6 8.1 2.356

.721 .921 .970 .996 1.184 1.444 .950

NOTE: Public Use Sample estimates exclude Mexican American, Puerto Rican, and other Spanish Americans, while whites in the Vital Statistics estimates include these groups, includes women 15-44 only.

bSource: Vital Statistics of the United States, 1979, voL 1, tables J -6,

Sources of Data and Methodological Considerations

63

Table 4-3: 1980 PUMS Estimated Fertility Rates and 1979 Recorded Vital Statistics Rates: Whites PUMS 1980

Ages 15 -1 9 2 0 -2 4 2 5 -2 9 3 0 -3 4 3 5 -3 9 4 0 -4 4 TFRa

24.6 106.7 117.2 76.1 18.8 5.6 1745.0

Vital Statistics13 1979

Ratio of PUMS to Vital Statistics

44.5 109.7 114.6 60.5 18.2 3.5 1755.0

.553 .973 1.023 1.258 1.033 1.600 .994

NOTE: Public Use Microdata Sample estimates exclude Mexican American, Puerto Rican, and other Spanish Americans, while whites in the Vital Statistics estimates include these groups, includes women 15-44 only. bSource:

Vital Statistics o f the United States, 1979, vol. 1, tables 1-9.

Table 4-4: Number of Own Children under 15 and Number of Children Ever Bom per 1,000 Ever-Married Women by Age and Ethnicity I. 1970 PUS White

M exican American

OC 15

CEB

(l)/(2) =

OC 15

CEB

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1 5 -1 9 2 0 -2 4 2 5 -2 9 3 0 -3 4 3 5 -3 9 4 0 -4 4

473 921 1768 2518 2057 1224

541 1001 1850 2737 3011 2941

.874 .920 .956 .920 .683 .416

688 1249 2150 2917 2649 1829

777 1378 2350 3 363 40 3 9 41 1 2

.885 .906 .915 .867 .656 .445

1 5 -4 4 2 0 -3 4

1643 1743

2241 1868

.733 .933

2079 2111

2860 2368

.727 .891

Ages

Continued on next page

(4)/(5) = (6)

64

Sources of Data and Methodological Considerations

II. 1976 SIE vs. 1976 CPSa White

Ages

SIE (1)

CPS (2)

Spanish Origin1-1 (l)/(2) =

SIE (3)

CPS (4)

(5)

(4)/(5) = (6)

1 5 -1 9 2 0 -2 4 2 5 -2 9 3 0 -3 4 3 5 -3 9 4 0 -4 4

500 781 1397 2066 1815 1071

500 835 1498 2248 2853 3110

1.000 .935 .933 .919 .636 .344

617 1118 1846 2 537 2102 1482

807 1273 1822 2987 3 388 3567

.765 .878 1.013 .849 .620 .415

1 5 -4 4 2 0 -3 4

1424 1455

2017 1564

.706 .930

1780 1842

2475 2 03 4

.719 .906

III. 1980 PUMS White

M exican American

OC 15

CEB

(l)/(2) =

OC 15

CEB

Ages

(1)

P)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1 5 -1 9 2 0 -2 4 2 5 -2 9 3 0 -3 4 3 5 -3 9 4 0 -4 4

467 772 1216 1706 1470 806

534 844 1283 1874 2383 2870

.875 .915 .948 .910 .617 .281

674 1220 1859 2 44 4 2146 1390

776 1347 2005 280 9 35 5 2 41 57

.869 .906 .927 .870 .604 .334

1 5 -4 4 2 0 -3 4

1233 1302

1825 1410

.676 .923

1774 1862

2515 2 0 74

.705 .898

(4)/(5) = (6)

aRatios of own children under age 15 in 1976 Survey of Income and Education to children ever bom in 1976 Current Population Survey, includes women of Spanish origin of any race.

Turning to the measure of cumulative fertility (panels I and III of table 4-4), we find that the number of own children under age 15 reported by other white women aged 20-34 represents about 93 percent of the number of children ever bom to these same women in 1970 and about 92 percent in 1980. For Mexican American women, the comparable figures are about 89 percent and 90 percent. Flence, it appears that the measure of cumulative fertility being used (the number of children under

Sources of Data and Methodological Considerations

65

age 15) understates slightly the fertility of Mexican American women, perhaps because Mexican Americans are less likely to have all of their children residing at home, either because of greater infant mortality among Mexican Americans or because of other factors, some of which are discussed below. In any event, assessments of differences in the cumulative fertility of other whites and Mexican Americans based on differences in the number of children under age 15 should understate such dif­ ferences. Finally, it should also be noted that some researchers have argued that own-childen data are more useful for the examina­ tion of fertility trends than for the study of fertility levels because such data provide only an approximation of actual levels of fertility (Rindfuss and Sweet, 1977). Although the methodology employed in this chapter involves the estimation of fertility levels for Mexican Americans and other whites, it should be made clear that the central focus is upon differences in levels between the ethnic subgroups rather than upon the fertili­ ty levels themselves. In this regard, it would seem just as ap­ propriate to examine group differences in fertility based on such estimates as it is to study temporal differences in fertility. The latter requires the assumption that distortion in the estimates is constant over time, whereas the former assumes that distortion is constant between groups. The analyses presented above sug­ gest that estimates of Mexican American fertility based on ownchildren data may be somewhat biased in the direction of understating fertility differences between Mexican Americans and other whites. It is assumed, however, that the magnitude of this underestimation does not preclude the use of such data to approximate patterns of fertility differences.

Statistical Methods of Analysis In discussing statistical methods, we again draw a distinction between analyses involving comparisons of Mexican Americans with other whites and analyses that involve examining relation­ ships within groups. In the former kind of analysis, the assess­ ment of generational as well as other group differences in fertili­ ty is subject to certain difficulties stemming from the fact that

66

Sources of Data and Methodological Considerations

the socioeconomic and demographic composition of genera­ tional and other groups may be constantly shifting over time, as in the case when patterns of selectivity associated with immigra­ tion vary as a result of changes in immigration laws. Hence, it is important to hold constant insofar as possible variation in demographic and socioeconomic composition among the com­ parison groups that may at least in part stem from such changes. The present research relies upon multivariate statistical techni­ ques that allow the possibly confounding influence of such fac­ tors to be removed from the estimates of fertility differences. Because the main independent variables of interest in the analyses are categorical, dummy variable regression models are used (Suits, 1957; Draper and Smith, 1966). In this type of regression model, units of analysis (in the present case, women) are given scores of 1 if they fall within a category that is part of a classification (such as "generational status") and scores of 0 if they do not. Included in the regression model, then, are all of the dummy variables for the categories of a given classification ex­ cept one, which must be omitted in order to remove exact linear dependence among the variables representing that classification. When based on variables scored in this manner, estimates of regression coefficients may be interpreted as average category deviations on the dependent variable from the mean of the omit­ ted category. When other variables are included in the model, the deviations may be interpreted as reflecting average dif­ ferences among the categories after adjusting for category dif­ ferences in other variables. In the results presented below, mean fertility differences are examined using dummy variable multi­ ple regression models, both before and after the influence of demographic and socioeconomic variables is controlled. In the second type of analysis, which typically occurs within groups, we are frequently interested in assessing the effects of certain independent variables, as well as interaction effects be­ tween two independent variables, on fertility. An illustrative ex­ ample involving measures of education and access to the oppor­ tunity structure may be drawn from chapter 7. We first estimate regression models of the following form:

67

Sources of Data and Methodological Considerations

Where Fj is the fertility of woman i, a0 is the intercept on the or­ dinate, bj is the regression slope for education, is the woman's number of years of school completed, b2 is the regres­ sion slope for the particular measure of access to the opportunity structure included in the analysis (expressed in terms of mean deviations from the mean of an omitted category in cases where dummy variables are used), OSj is the measure of access to the opportunity structure employed for women i, c; is the regression slope for the jth control variable, Xi;- is the score of woman i on control variable /, and is the error term. Subsequently, we estimate a model of the following form in order to assess whether the education effect depends upon the measures of access to the opportunity structure: F.1 = ao + b.1 Ed1 + bnOS + 2 1

£

1= 1

c.X. + b Ed. * OS + e 1 ij 3 1 1 1

(2) '

1

where the terms included are as defined above, where b3 in­ dicates the extent to which the effect of education depends upon values of OS, and where Edi * OSi is the product of the educa­ tion and access variables for woman i designed to capture the in­ teraction effect (Marsden, 1981).

Some Further Methodological Considerations In the case of the analyses comparing the fertility of various Mexican American groups with that of other whites, it is impor­ tant to note that any observed tendency on the part of later generation groups to exhibit lower fertility may to some extent reflect secular declines in fertility historically characteristic of the United States. This is all the more likely for groups that im­ migrated within a relatively narrow time span. Not only would the first-generation members of such groups have shared com­ mon norms and values about fertility in their countries of origin, but their descendants would have contemporaneously been ex­ posed to the forces contributing to secular fertility decline in their countries of destination. In brief, first-generation members of immigrant groups may differ with respect to when they entered the United States, as well as with respect to other factors

68

Sources of Data and Methodological Considerations

that affect fertility. This can influence generational fertility comparisons made with cross-sectional data. Aggregate generational comparisons are subject to other dif­ ficulties of interpretation as well (Taeuber and Taeuber, 1967). Because many recent arrivals whose characteristics contribute to descriptions of the first generation are likely to be young adults, they will not have had offspring old enough to contribute to descriptions of the second generation by the time of the census or survey. To the extent that mechanisms of transmission of characteristics from "parent to offspring" vary by entry cohorts, aggregate intergenerational comparisons may be accordingly biased. Hence, it is important to control age and year of entry whenever possible in making such comparisons. Even this is not entirely satisfactory, however, because such comparisons are not based on closed populations, and there is no way to know the characteristics of those persons who are either future or past members of the generations. Similarly, the social and economic characteristics of early and more recent immigrants, as well as their fertility behavior, may not be the same. This is especially likely to be a problem in the case of immigrant groups with a substantial volume of immigra­ tion both before and after the restrictive quota legislation passed in the 1920s, the effect of which was to raise the socioeconomic level of immigrant groups. This problem may not be especially severe in the case of the present research, at least insofar as pat­ terns of fertility are concerned, because fertility in Mexico has only recently begun to decline (Rodriguez-Barocio, GarciaNunez, Urbina-Fuentes, and Wulf, 1980), meaning that recent immigrants would not necessarily be expected to exhibit lower fertility than their predecessors. In order to adjust for some of the bias that might result from differential selectivity according to social characteristics, however, it is important to introduce statistical controls for such characteristics insofar as possible. The analyses presented in the following chapters include such control variables. Nonetheless, the results assume that patterns of selectivity into and out of the generational groups being com­ pared do not acount for observed differences after other variables are held constant.

5. Generational Status and Fertility

Greater access to the opportunity structure of American society is likely to be available to the later-generation members of im­ migrant populations. Members of the first generation, who may be handicapped in their efforts to achieve economic success by the lack of language skills and facility and by unfamiliaritv with the ways of the new society, are less likely to incur substantial opportunity costs of childbearing. Hence, it is reasonable to ex­ pect fertility patterns to vary by generational status among the members of immigrant populations. The purpose of this chapter is thus to investigate the manner in which the fertility of Mex­ ican immigrants to the United States and of their descendants varies according to the number of generations Mexican origin families have spent living in a country characterized by substan­ tially lower fertility than their country of origin. We examine two hypotheses about this fertility variation. The first is that members of the population of Mexican descent will decrease their fertility depending upon the length of time their families have spent in the United States. The second is that fertility dif­ ferentials by socioeconomic status will be more pronounced among couples of later-generational status.

Generation and Fertility The extent to which the later-generation members of ethnic groups reveal different fertility patterns from those of earlygeneration members has been assessed by Rosenwaike (1973) in an analysis based on United States Census data for ever-married Italian women. He not only found that cumulative fertility tended to be considerably lower among second-generation (native-born of foreign or mixed parentage) than among firstgeneration (foreign-born) Italian women, but also noted that

70 Generational Status and Fertility second-generation women showed lower fertility than com­ parable cohorts of white native-born American women of nativeborn parents. For example, first-generation ever-married Italian women aged 45-54 in 1940 had 4,710 children ever bom per 1,000 women as opposed to 2,145 children per 1,000 women for second-generation, ever-married Italian women aged 45-54 in 1960. The comparable figure for white native-born American women of native-born parentage was 2,423. Similar results have characterized studies of the fertility of Jewish immigrants.1 For example, early studies showed a dif­ ference in average completed family size between native-born and foreign-born Jewish couples of almost 1.5 persons per family (Engelman, 1938; 1951). In a later study based on the Jewish population of Providence, Rhode Island, Goldscheider (1965a; 1967) reported that first-generation couples had larger families than second-generation couples. He also noted that thirdgeneration Jewish couples had families that were about 22 per­ cent larger than those of first-generation couples. This suggests that under certain conditions a curvilinear pattern may typify the relationship between fertility and generation among Jews. However, data from the Princeton Fertility study, although limited to native-born couples, revealed no difference in the fer­ tility patterns of native-born Jewish women of foreign parentage when compared to native-born Jewish women of native bom parentage (Westoff, Potter, Sagi, and Mishler, 1961:203). Although the findings from research into the relationship be­ tween generation and fertility have not been entirely consistent, they point to a pattern of immigrant fertility involving initially higher fertility among the foreign-born, followed by lower fertili­ ty among later generations (possibly even lower, in the case of some second-generation groups, than the fertility of native-born women of native parents) and, eventually, convergence with the fertility patterns of the native population. The diminished fer­ tility observed among later-generation groups is thus consistent with the idea that immigrants to the United States from coun­ 1. It might be argued that certain aspects of the Jewish immigration ex­ perience are sufficiently different from that of Mexicans to render the two non­ comparable. Whatever the validity of this argument, it nevertheless remains true that both groups have tended to immigrate from countries characterized by higher fertility than in the United States.

Generational Status and Fertility

71

tries with higher fertility adjust their fertility downward to the levels prevailing within the native population.

Generation, Socioeconomic Status, and Fertility The relationship between socioeconomic status and fertility has also been found in previous research to depend upon generation. For example, using data from the Providence study mentioned above, Goldscheider (1965b; 1967) reported an inverse relation­ ship among first-generation couples between socioeconomic status (whether measured by education of wife, by education of husband, or by occupation of husband) and fertility, a result he interpreted as owing to the fact that higher-socioeconomic-status members of earlier generations of Jews were more likely to break away from the traditions associated with Eastern European ghetto culture including the tendency to have large families. Higher socioeconomic status among later-generation couples was argued to be related to the likelihood to plan families and to use contraception effectively, an outcome other fertility studies conducted at about the same time (circa 1960) also found coin­ cided with a positive association between fertility and socioeconomic status (Westoff, Potter, and Sagi, 1963:115; Whelpton and Kiser, 1958). In general, however, most demographic research has not uncovered much evidence to sup­ port a positive relationship between socioeconomic status and fertility.

Research on Mexican Americans There is very little demographic literature comparing the fertili­ ty of Mexican immigrants with that of the descendants of Mex­ ican immigrants in a manner permitting inferences about the ef­ fects on fertility of length of exposure to the environment of the receiving society. For example, Grebler, Moore, and Guzman (1970:135-138) in their landmark study of Mexican Americans did not attempt to compare the fertility patterns of Mexican Americans of different generations. A study by Uhlenberg

72 Generational Status and Fertility (1973), however, did address this question. Examining 1960 Census data, he found virtually no generational differences in fertility as measured by the number of children ever bom per 1,000 women. For example, foreign-bom women aged 35-44 in 1960 were reported to have 3,628 children per 1,000 women ver­ sus 3,775 for native-born women with native-born parents. He concluded, ". . . it is apparent that as of 1960, even thirdgeneration Mexican Americans had not adopted the small fami­ ly size pattern characteristic of the dominant society" (1973:34).2 Whether or not this pattern has persisted over time is a ques­ tion that has not received much attention, particularly in light of the fact that period fertility in the United States renewed its long-term decline during the 1960s after the "baby boom" years of the 1950s. Given the continuing, relatively heavy volume of immigration from Mexico, one might expect generational dif­ ferences in fertility among Mexican Americans to be more evi­ dent in 1970 than in 1960 data. Some support for this idea is provided by the research of Rindfuss and Sweet (1977). Using 1970 Public Use Sample data on the mean number of own children under the age of 3 for currently married Spanishsumamed women under age 40, they found that the fertility of couples in which neither spouse was bom in the United States was higher than if one or both spouses had been bom in the United States (Rindfuss and Sweet, 1977:120-125). However, they did not examine generation on a more detailed basis, nor did their study examine couples bom in Mexico. In considering only whether persons were bom inside or outside the United States, they were not able to examine the possibility that some of their Spanish-sumamed couples might have been bom in countries other than Mexico. Nonetheless, their results sug­ gested the possibility of emergent generational differences in fer­ tility among Mexican Americans since 1960. Some observers have also hypothesized that length of ex­ posure to the receiving society as indicated by generational status may be related to greater similarity between Mexican Americans and majority whites in socioeconomic status, thus 2. One reason for this is that the socioeconomic attainment of second- and third-generation Mexican Americans may not have reached the levels achieved by other immigrant groups.

Generational Status and Fertility

73

increasing the likelihood that high status couples will reduce their fertility (Bean and Marcum, 1978). However, Mexican Americans could be viewed as a group to which the prediction of depressing effects on fertility stemming from higher socioeconomic status might not apply. Not only are Mexican Americans seemingly pronatalist (Bradshaw and Bean, 1972), they are also predominantly Catholic (Grebler, Moore, and Guz­ man, 1970:487), although their religion has been argued not to be a factor in their pronatalism (Alvirez, 1973; Browning 1974). Nevertheless, recent studies indicate that changes in fertility and other behaviors among Mexican Americans may be affected by the fact that Mexico is such a proximate point of socioeconomic reference for members of this minority group (e.g., Bean and Wood, 1974; Dworkin, 1970; Marcum and Bean, 1976). In particular, Marcum and Bean found that among Mex­ ican Americans, upward intergenerational occupational mobili­ ty did not affect fertility among first- and second-generation couples, but did depress fertility among third- and highergeneration couples. This suggests that among Mexican Americans the depressing effect on fertility of higher socio­ economic status may be more evident among later- rather than early-generation couples. Patterns of Fertility Differences We first examine differences in fertility patterns between evermarried Mexican American and other white women. For each of the three samples, we make comparisons between other whites and the entire group of Mexican American women, as well as comparisons between other whites and the Mexican American group partitioned by generational status. We begin by describing differences in the average number of children under age 15 and under age 3, then we turn to analyses of patterns of variation in the measures of cumulative and current fertility, and finally we investigate the manner in which education and generational status jointly influence both measures of fertility. Average differences in cumulative and current fertility. Average differences in the measures of cumulative fertility be­ tween Mexican American and other white women in all three

74 Generational Status and Fertility samples closely parallel those observed in other studies. For ex­ ample, on the basis of the 1970 data, Mexican American women aged 20-34 show a mean of 2.13 children under age 15 per woman, a figure that exceeds that for other whites (1.74) by 22 percent (see table 5-1). In the case of the SIE data, the comparable figures are 1.96 and 1.43 children per woman, or 37 percent higher Mexican American fertility. The differences observed on the basis of the 1980 data are also similar (1.86 children for Mex­ ican Americans and 1.30 for other whites, or 43 percent higher Mexican American fertility). Whether the greater relative dif­ ferences occurring from 1970 to 1980 reflect real differences in fertility between the two periods, differences in the way the data sets identify the Mexican American population, or perhaps dif­ ferences in other unknown factors cannot be addressed with presently available information. The trend of lower values from 1970 to 1980 among non-Mexican white women is certainly consistent with the trends in period fertility to which these cohorts of women would have been subject during the years preceding the collection of data. Mexican American women, however, exhibit less aggregate fertility decline over these years. This pattern is nonetheless consistent with other research findings that show that the fertility behavior of minority groups in the United States has responded less to period factors than is the case for majority fertility (Rindfuss and Sweet, 1977). Morever, the pattern of differences over time is consistent with the theoretical approach set forth here, in that Mexican Amer­ ican women are less well integrated into existing socioeconomic opportunity structures. In all data sets, the pattern of fertility differences among the generational groups also tends to conform to prior expectations, with later-generation Mexican Americans revealing fewer numbers of children under age 15 than those of earlier genera­ tions. The differences are not large, however, and the firstgeneration group as revealed in the 1970 PUS data actually ex­ hibits a lower value on the cumulative fertility measure than the second-generation group (2.37 children versus 2.42), an unex­ pected finding that we give further attention to below. An examination of means in current fertility, also presented in table 5-1, reveals patterns that are nearly identical to those for cumulative fertility. For example, Mexican Americans exhibit

Generational Status and Fertility 7 5

Table 5-1: Mean Numbers of Own Children under Age 15 and under Age 3 and Standard Deviations by Ethnic Group and Generational Status, Ever-Married Women Aged 20-34: 1970 PUS, 1976 SIE, 1980 PUMS Children Under 15

I.

Children Under 3

N

X

S

X

S

7034 6922

1.74 2.13

1.42 1.68

.45 .55

.61 .68

978 1283 4661

2.37 2.42 2.00

1.83 1.77 1.60

.64 .57 .53

.72 .70 .66

33605 1495

1.43 1.96

1.21 1.44

.35 .47

.55 .63

426 1069

2.10 1.90

1.57 1.39

.61 .42

.72 .59

8234 8140

1.30 1.86

1.12 1.42

.36 .50

.64 .56

2820 5320

2.05 1.76

1.52 1.36

.56 .47

.66 .63

1970 PUS

Ethnic Group Other Whites M exican Americans

Generational Statusa First Second Third or Higher

II.

1976 SIE

Ethnic Group Other White Mexican Americans

Generational Statusa First Second or Higher

HI.

1980 PUMS

Ethnic Group Other Whites Mexican Americans

Generational Statusa First Second or Higher

“Includes only Mexican American subgroups.

larger numbers of children under age 3 than other whites, ir­ respective of whether the estimates are based on the 1970 PUS (0.55 children per Mexican American woman versus 0.45 for other whites), the 1976 SIE (0.47 versus 0.35), or the 1980 PUMS (0.50 versus 0.36). And in the case of the pattern by generation,

76 Generational Status and Fertility current fertility is uniformly lower among later- as compared to early-generation groups. Hence, the same pattern of fertility variation that emerges with respect to cumulative fertility is also evident in the case of current fertility. Analyses o f cumulative fertility. Now we turn to an examina­ tion of patterns of fertility differences that take into account dif­ ferences among the groups with respect to other variables that may explain the observed relationships. Some of these other variables are introduced to adjust for differences in socio­ economic composition. Others are employed to hold constant demographic differences among the groups. For example, age is included to adjust for differences in age composition. This variable is entered as set of dummy variables for five-year age categories. Also given special attention is female education, which is entered as a set of dummy variables for the following years of education completed: 0-8, 9-11, 12, 13-15, 16 + . While in certain instances it might be desirable to employ indicators of socioeconomic status for husbands, this would necessitate restricting the analyses to currently married women instead of the more inclusive category of ever-married women. Additional variables that are held constant in the analyses include family income, region of residence, marital disruption, farm residence, and female employment experience (in the 1970 and 1980 data) and female labor force participation (in the 1976 data). (See Ap­ pendix B for the codes used.) Because the major purpose of this chapter is to ascertain the extent to which Mexican Americans of later generation reveal fertility patterns similar to those of the majority population, the analyses combine the samples of Mexican Americans and other whites are taken as the reference category (i.e., the dummy variable for other whites is deleted from the analyses in order to remove linear dependence from any set of variables representing ethnic group membership). Thus, the regression coefficients on the dummy variables designating membership in one of the Mexican American groups indicate average Mexican fertility ex­ pressed as a deviation from average fertility for other whites. These deviations are estimated for several regression models. They are first presented for the model that does not adjust for any of the other variables. Next they are presented for a model holding age constant, then for one including age and female

Generational Status and Fertility

77

education, and finally for a model that adjusts for all of the con­ trol variables. The second columns of tables 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4 present the results of these analyses, with average Mexican American cumulative fertility expressed as a deviation from the average for other whites. As noted previously, the average number of children under age 15 for Mexican Americans exceeds that for other whites by nearly 0.4 child per woman in the 1970 PUS data (0.385) and by slightly more than 0.5 child in both the SIE data (0.522) and the 1980 data (0.560). Because Mexican American fertility has been higher than majority fertility for quite some time, the age structure of Mexican women is somewhat younger than that of other whites (Bean, Stephen, and Opitz, 1985). The third columns show the deviations in cumulative fertility ad­ justing for differences in age composition. As can be seen, the ef­ fect of holding age constant is to increase slightly the average dif­ ferences in cumulative fertility between Mexican Americans and other whites. Stated differently, the younger ages of the Table 5-2: Mean Deviations in Number of Own Children under Age 15 for M exican Americans Compared to Other Whites, Ever-Married W omen Aged 20-34: 1970 PUS Deviations from Mean for Other Whites N

Gross

N et3

6922

.385d 1.744

.39 l d ,160d .138d .895 1.554 1.872

978 1283 4661

.63 l d .680d ,253d 1.744

.530d .073 .007 .557d .277d .279d ,316d .142d ,122d 1.910 1.571 .903

Netb

N etc

Ethnic Group M exican Americans Regression Constant Generational Status First Second Third or Higher Regression Constant

Source: 1970 Public Use Sample (15 percent state tapes). aOther variables in model: age. bOther variables in model: age and education. cOther variables in model: age, education, family income, region, marital disruption, farm residence, and female employment experience. dp O e -a S pa *§ -J % > Q a, at *T3 a

B § Ji o f .fi « H .g c/5 C8 > . '£ a PhJ-*. V 73 QW 73 X o3 O u Ph

% | nj O -i-H

bJD bJO

to X

qj -r-(

^ ^ £ Z Z c