Modes of incorporation: a conceptual and empirical critique

Abstract

Entering the debate over segmented assimilation, this paper seeks to refocus discussion on a core, but neglected claim: that inter-group disparities among immigrant offspring derive from differences in a contextual feature shared by immigrant and immigrant descendants: a nationality's mode of incorporation. The paper engages in both theoretical and empirical assessment. We critically examine the concept of mode of incorporation, demonstrating that its operational implications have not been correctly understood; consequently, the core hypothesis has never been appropriately tested. The second part of the paper implements those tests, making use of the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Survey. We do so by using nationality as a proxy for mode of incorporation, systematically contrasting more advantaged against less advantaged nationalities. We show: (a) that tests systematically varying modes classified as more or less advantageous yield inconsistent outcomes; (b) that positive or negative modes of incorporation are associated with few long-lasting effects; (c) that differences in governmental reception are particularly unlikely to be associated with interethnic disparities; and (d) that compared to theoretically relevant nationalities, neither Mexicans, a nationality assigned to a negative mode of incorporation, nor pre-Mariel Cubans, a nationality assigned to positive mode of incorporation, prove distinctive.2

Reconceptualizing Context: A Multilevel Model of the Context of Reception and Second‐Generation Educational Attainment

“…Comparing names generates coefficients that are only inconsistently significant (Waldinger and Catron 2016). An index ranking nationalities according to the advantage/disadvantage associated with a mode of incorporation produces more robust effects, but it is neither a meaningful metric (what, exactly, is entailed in a one-step difference in modes of incorporation?)…”

“…Recent systematic evaluations of this approach using the CILS data (Waldinger and Catron 2016) have found that when systematically applied to all meaningful comparisons, and varying one dimension at a time, results are often inconsistent with the predictions of the modes of incorporation model. In additional analyses, which are available as Supplemental Material, we implement a similar approach using the IIMMLA and IMSGNY data and come to conclusions similar to those reported by Waldinger and Catron.…”

“…The appropriate test, however, would involve changing only one of the three determining variables (policy, societal reception, and co-ethnic community) at a time, leaving the other two constant. Indeed, a recent appraisal using this method finds little empirical support for such smaller combinatorial differences (Waldinger and Catron 2016). Moreover, even when implementing this method, it proves impossible to assess the effects of each dimension individually: Does government reception matter more or less than societal reception in influencing educational outcomes for the children of immigrants?…”

Chinese Immigrant Wealth: Heterogeneity in Adaptation

“…Looking past the medians, it becomes clear that Chinese immigrants vary dramatically on many traits that are associated with incorporation such as national origin, U.S. tenure, and life course state. Although it is well-established that each of these characteristics facilitates post-migration attainment [2, 6–8], scholars have increasingly called for more exploration of within-immigrant group variation on attributes such as these to adjudicate disparate findings about incorporation [9–12]. Because contemporary Chinese immigrants are the largest and most internally-diverse portion of the Chinese origin population, they provide a unique and important opportunity to answer this call.…”

Perceptions of Discrimination: What Do They Measure and Why Do They Matter?

“…The role salient ethnic boundaries play in explaining group-specific integration outcomes is a highly contested issue in migration research (Portes and Rumbaut 2001;Waldinger and Catron 2016;Wimmer and Soehl 2014). There is certainly ample empirical evidence of experiences of ethnic prejudice and discrimination, particularly in survey data and audit studies (Pager 2007;Strabac and Listhaug 2008).…”