The Economic Value of Bilingualism for Asians and Hispanics¹

Abstract

This study examines how bilingualism affects the wages of Asian and Hispanic workers using 2000 Census data. In contradiction to the general belief that bilingualism can provide a competitive advantage in the labor market, we find no evidence that 1.5‐generation and U.S.‐born Asian and Hispanic bilingual workers generally have higher wages than their English monolingual co‐ethnics; in some cases, in fact, their wages are significantly lower. In search of specific circumstances under which bilingualism might provide an economic advantage, we also examine interactions of language with such variables as education, employment in the public rather than the private sector, and the size of the population of mother‐tongue speakers. With limited exceptions, we find no sign of greater economic returns to bilingualism. Since bilingualism requires considerable effort to maintain across generations in the United States, we conclude that the virtual absence of economic rewards for it creates pressure for linguistic assimilation.

Children of immigrants and social mobility in officially bilingual societies

“…A second paradox is that in spite of the conceptualization of language as capital with a market value, the bilingualism of immigrants in the host society is correlated with relatively lower earnings, even sometimes with negative earnings (Shin and Alba 2009). In this respect, Chiswick points out the following: "What is surprising... is that in the U.S. and Australia, among native-born adult men, those who report they speak another language at home but speak English "very well" (the highest proficiency category) earn about 4 percent less than otherwise statistically similar men who are monolingual English speakers" (Chiswick 2008:22).…”

Generation and Earnings Patterns among Chinese, Filipino, and Korean Americans in New York

“…It is also interesting whether the bilingual or bicultural orientation will give the second generation an advantage in the labor market. However, Shin and Alba (2009) report based on the analyses of the national‐level Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) data that this bilingual advantage in school performance is not necessarily translated into labor‐market outcome. Their study on the economic advantage of bilingual ability for Asian and Hispanic wage workers found no evidence that 1.5‐generation and native‐born Asian and Hispanic bilingual workers have higher wages than their English monolingual co‐ethnics.…”

“…A few recent researchers have already pointed out that disaggregating the 1.5 generation from foreign‐born population is critical in understanding the socioeconomic adaptation trajectories for individuals (Rumbaut, 2004; Zeng and Xie, 2004; Shin and Alba, 2009). In his comprehensive, conceptual, and empirical analysis of the 1998–2002 Current Population Surveys, Rumbaut (2004) classified the foreign‐born who migrated before age 18 into three groups based on the life stage in which migration occurred: (1) the 1.75 generation (ages 0–5), (2) the 1.5 generation (6–12), and (3) the 1.25 generation (13–17).…”

“…Almost all previous studies that have examined socioeconomic attainments among Asian Americans have compared different Asian ethnic groups using the national sample. For example, Shin and Alba (2009) report based on their analysis of the 2000 U.S. Census national sample that fluently bilingual Asian Americans do not have an advantage over others in converting their human capital investments into earnings for any group. But the opportunity structures not only in the general labor market but also in the ethnic enclave economy differ in different cities for the same ethnic group (Light and Rosenstein, 1995; Hiebert, 1999).…”

Intermarriage Patterns among the Children of Hispanic Immigrants

“…These individuals are sometimes called the '1.75 generation' (Portes and Rumbaut 2006). [6] Some studies combine the two highest English proficiency categories of 'very well' and 'well' into a binary variable of FEP, but empirical tests in other studies indicate that persons who speak English 'well' are not that much different from those who do not speak English well, while those who speak English 'very well' are quite different from persons in the other three categories in terms of structural factors that are highly correlated with English proficiency (Chiswick and Miller 1995;Espenshade and Fu 1997;Shin and Alba 2009). …”