Panethnicity and Ethnic Resources in Residential Integration: A Comparative Study of Two Host Societies

Abstract

The racial and ethnic structure of a host society as well as its institutional and ideological context of integration shape the ethnic integration process. To examine these forces for residential integration, this study compares three panethnic groups in Canada and the United States using tabular data from the 2001 Canadian and the 2000 US censuses. Two ways in which the social context is important are identified. First, the social context affects how groups are distributed across urban neighbourhoods. As expected, being a Black ethnic group meant being less segregated in Canada than in the US but Asian groups were more segregated, controlling for group characteristics and the urban and regional context. White ethnic groups in both countries were similarly segregated. Second, the social context influences the process of incorporation itself. The effect of ethnic resources, in terms of acculturation and socioeconomic status, was dependent on the group and host society. The results demonstrate that the national context plays a significant role in the way panethnic group membership influences the spatial processes of ethnic groups in the urban neighbourhoods of the two host societies.

Panethnicity, Ethnic Diversity, and Residential Segregation

“…But these researchers were interested in the effect of immigration on black-white segregation and as a result, did not investigate variation within and between panethnic groups. In a second study comparing segregation patterns in Canada and the United States, a range of ethno-national groups were classified according to panethnic grouping and the panethnic boundary was found to be meaningful for residential segregation (Kim 2005). Asian origin groups were more segregated than white ethnic groups in Canada but less segregated than white ethnic groups in the US.…”

“…To explain racial or ethnic residential patterns, three key theoretical perspectives are often considered; spatial assimilation theory, place stratification theory and the theory of ethnic retention (Kim 2005). The first two theories can be applied to explain panethnic residential patterns, that is, to explain why we might find ethno-national groups falling within a panethnic boundary to be less segregated from one another.…”

A spatial and organisational analysis of Asian panethnic association in Perth, Western Australia

“…In Australia, Pacific Islanders may position themselves at varying sites of social identity, sometimes identifying broadly as “Nesian”, sometimes identifying within a more specific ethno-national frame of reference (McGavin, 2014). A great strength of panethnicity as an analytical concept is that “it recognizes the layering of social identities, and ethnic and cultural diversity within constructed boundaries” (Kim, 2005, p. 3). Okamoto and Mora (2014) have observed that community leaders win more support when they depict panethnic identity as complementary to ethnic identity; thus successful panethnic organisation depends upon embracing, rather than denying or subsuming, ethnic diversity.…”

“…How then to measure panethnic groupness? Manifestations that can be observed include panethnic protests and collective action (Okamoto, 2003; Espiritu, 1992; Mora, 2014), residential spatial segregation of ethnic and panethnic groups (Kim, 2005; Kim and White, 2010) and the existence of panethnic media or panethnic organisations (Okamoto, 2006; Mora, 2014; Itzigsohn, 2004). However, Okamoto has also demonstrated that the establishment of panethnic organisations is not a necessary precondition for panethnic activities or collective representation.…”

“…Residential segregation is a highly visible measure of (pan)ethnic association. Boundaries within social fields, whether ethnic or panethnic, are reflected in spatial fields (Kim, 2005). Traditional ecological succession theories of ethnic geographical distribution posited the parallel process of spatial and social assimilation, wherby new migrants clustered in inner-city ghettos and enclaves, gradually moving out to the suburbs and assimilating into the dominant society as they attained socioeconomic success (Park et al , 1925).…”