Institutional Panethnicity: Boundary Formation in Asian-American ...

Institutional Panethnicity: Boundary Formation in Asian-American Organizing Dina G. Okamoto, University of California, Davis Abstract In the wake of the civil rights movement, new organizations formed which were based on the collective interests and identities of their constituencies. Some of these organizations brought together national origin groups who often differed by ethnicity, language, culture, religion and immigration history. In this paper, I focus on the conditions that facilitate the institutionalization of a socially constructed panethnic community. Using a new longitudinal data set of Asian American organizations, I draw upon a theory of panethnicity which emphasizes the structured relations between groups at different boundary levels to understand panethnic organizational foundings. When controlling for resource availability, political opportunities and organizational dynamics, the boundary formation variables remain important in explaining new organizational activity. Since the 1970s, organizational activity based on a collective identity derived from members’ common interests and experiences has become an increasingly prevalent option for social change efforts. The organizational forms that emerged during the Civil Rights era illuminate the new ways in which groups not only fulfilled the social and economic needs of their respective communities, but demonstrate how ethnic minorities were able to institute collective identities and provide a framework for the articulation of group interests. Some of these organizations served and brought together national origin groups who often differed by language, culture, religion and immigration history. Based on the socially constructed notion of a panethnic community, organizations such as the National Council of La Raza, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance and the National Urban Indian Development Corporation played an important role in securing civil rights for their respective communities by providing services and advocacy for different ethnic and tribal communities under a unified panethnic framework while contributing to the creation of new cultural and political identities. Recently, such organizations have been successful in campaigns against anti-immigrant legislation, unfair wages, poor working conditions and the lack of affordable housing and economic opportunities. Under what conditions are national-origin groups who differ by language, culture, collective history, religion and immigration status able to construct a panethnic identity upon which to form a larger collective? What conditions influence the institutionalization of a socially constructed panethnic community? I thank Eric Grodsky, Mignon Moore and Kimberlee Shauman for their advice on earlier drafts of this paper. This research was supported by the Visiting Scholars Program at the Russell Sage Foundation in 2004-05 and a National Science Foundation Dissertation Improvement Grant (SES-9900774). Direct correspondence to Dina G. Okamoto, University of California-Davis, Department of Sociology, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616. E-mail: [email protected]. © The University of North Carolina Press

Social Forces, Volume 85, Number 1, September 2006

2 • Social Forces Volume 85, Number 1 • September 2006

Contemporary research on panethnicity suggests that political policies and mainstream institutions influence the construction of group boundaries by increasing the symbolic and material value of racial and ethnic identities. Some scholars argue that government agencies view racial groups such as Asian Americans, Native Americans and Latinos as “a single administrative unit” when distributing resources (Espiritu and Ong 1994). Imposing a racial structure on minority communities has led groups to use panethnicity as a strategy to secure federal and state funding as well as employment benefits. In his study of Latino mobilization, Padilla (1985) finds that Mexicans and Puerto Ricans organized collectively and created new panethnic organizations in Chicago during the 1980s to combat overt language discrimination in the labor market, using equal opportunity and affirmative action policies to make their claims. Similarly, Nagel (1995) finds that Native Americans organized across tribal lines during the same period as a response to governmental policies that treated groups racially. Other scholars emphasize the role of external threats in the creation and strengthening of group boundaries. When under threat in the form of ethnic prejudice, discrimination or violence, ethnic group members tend to see themselves as having interests in common with others who have similar characteristics, and they build group solidarity in order to protect themselves. According to Portes (1984), ethnic enterprises were created in response to perceived hostility from the host society directed at new immigrants. Similarly, Espiritu (1992) finds that after the 1982 Vincent Chin incident – when two Detroit men mistook a Chinese American man for a Japanese national and beat him to death with a baseball bat – Asian Americans engaged in “reactive solidarity” by forming panethnic organizations to monitor, report and protest anti-Asian violence. In their study of the rise and fall of ethnic newspapers in the early 20th century, Olzak and West (1991) discovered that ethnic conflict against white immigrants encouraged the formation of ethnic organizations. In sum, the emergence of panethnic boundaries is viewed as a reaction to external threats manifested in the form of racial prejudice and discrimination. Clearly, political policies and external threats are significant factors that influence the formation of panethnic organizations despite differences in national origin, culture, language and generation. The studies reviewed above point to racialization as the driving force leading national origin groups to cross boundaries and collectively organize. In other words, as the dominant group or the larger society views and treats Asian Americans, Native Americans, African Americans and Latinos racially, not making distinctions based on nativity, generation, tribal affiliation or national origin, these groups respond by asserting a panethnic identity and constructing a common culture that is facilitated by common experiences vis-à-vis the dominant group (Cornell 1990, Espiritu 1992). Studies on panethnicity tend to focus on the importance of racialization by others in the construction of panethnic identities, but such work has less to tell us about the structural conditions that influence ethnic groups to organize collectively along panethnic lines. In other words, even if the state imposes a racial structure on groups or if ethnic groups experience discrimination and racism, panethnicity does not always occur. I argue that local, structural conditions play an important role in facilitating or discouraging panethnic activity.

Institutional Panethnicity • 3

Building on past research, this article contributes to the empirical and theoretical literature by examining the conditions that encourage the institutionalization of a socially constructed notion of panethnic community. Using a new longitudinal data set of Asian American organizations, I apply a theory of panethnicity to organizational formation, recognizing that the layering of ethnic identities can complicate the extent to which different ethnic or national origin groups can act collectively. I use this theoretical framework to focus on how structural conditions based on ethnic and racial boundaries can promote or deter panethnic collective action.

Organizations as Mobilizing and Identity Structures Organizations based on collective identities not only provide a structural context for the development of a common culture and identity, but they also can be conceptualized as “mobilizing structures” (McCarthy 1996). By bringing together groups of potential participants, organizations facilitate solidarity, communication and network ties, which in turn contribute to potential collective action. These mobilizing structures include formal organizations such as social movement groups that mobilize a constituency with the political goal of obtaining a collective good. Voluntary organizations are also mobilizing structures because even though they are not primarily aimed at movement mobilization, they may work on behalf of the movement or provide social locations where mobilization may be generated (Kriesi 1996). Still other organizations that provide services for group members strengthen communities by increasing self-sufficiency and education. Not only do these groups construct effective ideologies and social environments that encourage commitment, they also attract material resources that contribute to the success of their organizational goals. In this paper, I consider organizations to be panethnic when the membership or community served is comprised of culturally and linguistically diverse national origin groups that are often seen as homogeneous by outsiders (Lopez and Espiritu 1990). Participation in a panethnic organization can lead an individual to develop a panethnic consciousness – seeing himself or herself as part of a larger group whose members have similar interpretations of personal experiences and the larger society (Espiritu 1992, Kibria 2002). In addition, given that panethnic organizations attempt to extend the civil, political and economic rights of a larger collective, the formation of panethnic organizations not only measures the extent to which a constructed category becomes institutionalized, but it is also an indicator of collective action and increasing movement strength. Even though all ethnic group members may not participate in the planning, support and implementation of a panethnic organization – much like the selective participation of group members in protests and demonstrations – collective work across ethnic boundaries by a segment of the Asian American population represents a remarkable collective effort by several different ethnic communities.

Panethnic Organizations in the Asian American Community Beginning in the late 1800s and early 1900s, Asian ethnic communities formed traditional associations which served the social and economic needs of immigrants, offering them protection and aid, and even negotiating disputes among members. The district and family associations of the Chinese community


were part of the most extensive organizational structure of all the Asian ethnic groups (Chan 1991). Japanese organizations during this period were based on prefectural lines and provided economic aid and social events for the community (Daniels 1988). Soon after immigrating to the United States, Filipinos, Koreans and Asian Indians also organized on the basis of common location within a home province or along religious lines. As early as the 1850s, Chinese community leaders formed an organization that was based on national identity instead of clan and kin. In response to the growing hostility directed towards Chinese immigrants, the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association (CCBA) was born. The CCBA directly governed the different district associations and functioned as a benevolent and protective organization, often representing the Chinese community to outsiders (Lai 1987). After the Gentleman’s Agreement was forged in 1908, at the height of the antiJapanese movement, the Japanese Association of America (JAA) was founded to protect the rights of Japanese immigrants. All Japanese residents, despite their village and prefecture differences, belonged to the organization (Daniels 1988). The Korean National Organization was formed in 1909 in San Francisco by the merger of several organizations with the objectives of promoting the economic development of Korean immigrant communities and working for the independence for Korea (Takaki and Stefoff 1994). Like the JAA and CCBA, all Korean immigrants were required to join the organization and pay dues which supported the Korean newspaper and patriotic fund. For Filipinos, after the 1930 Watsonville riots where hundreds of Filipinos were attacked by white mobs, most associations, including the Filipino Community Center in New York, were established on the basis of ethnicity rather than kin or province (Cordova 1983). Economic and demographic changes after World War II contributed to the further erosion of the traditional forms of organization within the respective Asian ethnic communities (Kwong 1987). Voluntary associations and governmentfunded agencies emerged to provide aid and services to the Asian population. In addition, with the educational, spatial and marital assimilation of each passing generation, ethnic group members had different needs and interests from those of the past. New organizations based on a panethnic boundary were formed to serve the needs of the collective Asian American community. The first pan-Asian organization, Asian American Political Alliance (AAPA), was formed in 1968 in the wake of the San Francisco State strike where students from different racial and ethnic backgrounds protested against the lack of diversity in the university curriculum and demanded ethnic studies programs (Wei 1993). The AAPA brought Asian national origin groups together to increase the effectiveness and political visibility of their activism. During this period, panethnic organizations flourished on university campuses as Asian American students protested against the Vietnam War and the imperialist nature of U.S. participation. The pan-Asian concept was not only used on college campuses, but it began to be used extensively by professional and community spokespersons to lobby and organize for the welfare and rights of Asian Americans. The strategy of forming panAsian coalitions and associations was often used because government agencies preferred to fund “multi-ethnic” rather than single-ethnic organizations. Awarding


funds to pan-Asian organizations avoided any charge of favoritism toward certain Asian ethnic communities (Espiritu 1992, Kimura 1990). But even with funding as an incentive, building panethnic organizations was often problematic. Vo’s (1996) case study of a panethnic organization in San Diego illustrates how economic and generational changes within the Asian American community complicated the development of a successful pan-Asian organization. In addition, Ong and Espiritu (1994) document conflicts between Asian ethnic groups surrounding leadership and equal representation in panethnic organizations. The pan-Asian organizations that emerged after the Civil Rights era were diverse in goals and strategies, but ultimately served to create, sustain and expand upon the idea of an Asian American community (Lien 2001, Wei 1993). These organizations lobbied against discriminatory immigration legislation, brought media attention to racial profiling, and pursued employment issues that relate to Asians and other ethnic minorities, while providing a critical context for the development of networks and relationships across Asian national origin boundaries, and for the construction and dissemination of an Asian American history and culture (Kibria 1997).

Past Research on Organizational Formation Organizational foundings have been the focus of scholars who seek to understand the conditions that influence the organizing of social movements across the United States, whether they be associated with ethnic minorities seeking fair representation and access to resources or militia group members who believe that citizen action is necessary for individual and group survival (Minkoff 1995, Van Dyke and Soule 2002). Contextual factors, such as resources, have been important predictors for the founding of voluntary and social movements organizations. McCarthy et al. (1988) find that population size and growth, in addition to community resources in the geographic area, such as high levels of education and socioeconomic status, increased the founding rate of local citizen action groups against drunk driving throughout the United States. Examining the foundings and failures of newspapers, Olzak and West (1991) find that ethnic conflict has differing effects for immigrants and African Americans: attacks against immigrants spur the formation of immigrant newspapers, but attacks against African Americans dampen the rate of African American newspaper foundings. Given that the ethnic violence directed toward African Americans was more frequent and intense than attacks against immigrants, the authors suggest that the resource base of the African American community was undermined, making it difficult for them to fend off attacks and create new organizations. Thus, studies on organizational formation have found support for the resource mobilization perspective, which generally suggests that the availability of and access to economic and organizational resources are central to successful collective action (McCarthy and Zald 1988, Tilly 1978). Political opportunity may also be an important contextual variable to consider in regards to the formation of organizations representing social movements. The concept of political opportunity continues to be expanded and refined, but generally is viewed as a function of the level of elite receptivity of particular groups


and movements (Tarrow 1991, Tilly 1978). The general political climate can affect how minority and special interest groups are perceived and eventually funded, or accorded certain rights and privileges. In short, openings and shifts in the political structure should improve the prospects for organizational activity. Minkoff’s (1995) research indicates that a Democratic presidential administration in the previous year promoted new organizational foundings among women and ethnic minorities. Here, supportive elites in positions of power represent openings in the political structure that aid the growth and strength of minority communities. However, other studies find that political opportunity variables do not have robust effects when predicting the formation of new organizations. For example, McCammon (2001) finds that political opportunities, such as the openness of state legislatures to the voting rights of women and party competition, did not influence state suffrage organizing. Organizational ecology approaches have also had success in explaining organizational formation rates. Several studies have found that organizational density has a positive effect on new foundings, indicating that density is one mechanism leading to the legitimacy of particular organizational forms (Hannan and Freeman 1989). However, as the number of active organizations grows, competition among organizations emerges, and founding rates of new organizations decline (Hannan and Carroll 1992). In her study of the evolution of women’s and minority organizations, Minkoff (1995) discovered that their proliferation was influenced by increases in the number of active organizations. The density of organizations promoted the institutional acceptability and legitimation of organizations based on the interests of women and ethnic minorities, and provided a model of action for new organizations. Taken together, past research on organizational foundings suggests that resource availability, political opportunities and organizational dynamics shape organizational formation. While useful, missing from this literature is a theoretical body of work that addresses the structured relations between racial and ethnic groups. Given that this paper focuses on the institutionalization of a constructed panethnic community, a theory of panethnicity must be considered to more fully understand the conditions that lead to panethnic organizational foundings.

A Theory of Panethnicity Okamoto’s (2003) theory of panethnicity provides a useful framework for understanding the structural conditions that influence the formation of panethnic organizations. Drawing on theories of ethnic boundary formation, this framework focuses on how the structuring of groups at different boundary levels influences panethnic outcomes. Specifically, the theory of panethicity posits that segregation and competition can occur between and among racial groups, and these dynamics have differing effects on panethnicity.

Segregation Processes The cultural division of labor theory claims that the systematic and differential distribution of ethnic populations into the occupational structure influences


group and identity formation, as well as collective action (Hechter 1999 [1975]). This cultural division of labor can be segmental, where ethnic groups are highly occupationally specialized, or hierarchical, where ethnic populations are concentrated at the bottom of the occupational structure. According to the theory, a common social identity will arise among ethnic group members who are segregated into certain occupations due to their similar structural position, shared work experiences and daily interaction. In addition, group boundaries will be strengthened when ethnic populations come to view their life chances as largely determined by their membership in an ethnic group. This heightening of ethnic boundaries will lead to collective action in the form of protest or voting behavior. Several empirical studies have found support for the cultural division of labor theory in contexts ranging from the Celtic Fringe in the 1880s to Israel in the 1990s (Diez Medrano 1994; Hechter 1999 [1975], 1978; Mettam and Williams 1998; Peled 1998). The cultural division of labor theory can be applied to panethnic collective action (Okamoto 2003): to the extent that Asians as a group are occupationally segregated from other racial groups, solidarity based on panethnic boundaries should develop and panethnic collective action should follow. However, the cultural division of labor theory does not specify the extent to which the occupational segregation of several different ethnic groups will counteract or enhance panethnicity. Recognizing the expansion and contraction of ethnic boundaries, the theory of panethnicity posits that the occupational segregation of Asian ethnic subgroups from one another, not simply the segregation of Asians as a group, will affect collective action outcomes. In fact, Asian ethnic groups will have fewer opportunities for interethnic interaction and a lower level of shared economic interests if they are specialized in different occupations, which should dampen the formation of a panethnic community. In sum, the predictions can be applied to organizational formation and are as follows: When Asians as a group are concentrated in particular occupations, this leads to the heightening of panethnic boundaries and leads to panethnic outcomes whereas the segregation of Asian subgroups into different occupations heightens ethnic boundaries and has a dampening effect on panethnicity.

Competition Processes Competition theory posits that when two or more ethnic groups are in competition, collective action will occur because each group is attempting to maintain or improve its position in the social hierarchy (Olzak 1992). Even though competition theorists agree that occupational segregation can lead to the salience of ethnic identities, they argue that an additional incentive – economic processes that affect changes in the distributions of racial/ethnic populations – must be present in order for ethnic boundaries to be activated and ethnic collective action to occur. These economic processes, such as an increase in immigration or a decline in labor market segregation, lead to contact between racial and ethnic groups within a context of scarce resources, resulting in competition and collective action. This collective action may take the form of protest or conflict against other groups in order to exclude them from particular resources, or to ensure that


resources remain held by certain groups. Competition theory also suggests that economic contraction will also lead to ethnic competition and collective action. Several empirical studies indicate that when labor markets become integrated and contact between different ethnic/racial groups is initiated, competition between ethnic populations ensues, leading to ethnic collective action in the form of ethnic protest or ethnic conflict (Bonacich 1973, Olzak 1992, Olzak et al. 1996, Ragin 1979). These theoretical ideas can be easily extended to the case of panethnicity: competition between Asians and other racial groups, such as whites or Latinos, will activate a panethnic boundary, leading to panethnic collective action. But in a multi-ethnic context where ethnic boundaries can shift and contract, the theory makes no predictions about how competition between Asian ethnic groups will affect collective action outcomes. In other words, if Asian ethnic groups are competing for the same resources, this should have a countervailing effect on panethnicity. Thus, recognizing that ethnic boundaries can shift and change, this theory can be extended to make predictions about the effects of competition measured at different boundary levels on panethnic outcomes (Okamoto 2003). To summarize, competition between Asians and other racial groups should be positively related to collective action based on a panethnic boundary, whereas competition between ethnic group members comprising a panethnic group should be negatively associated with panethnic activities, such as organizational formation.

Data Collection To test the theoretical predictions above, I constructed a new data set of Asian American organizations from 1970 to 1998 using the Encyclopedia of Associations, National Organizations (Gale Research Co.). The Encyclopedia of Associations is considered to be the most comprehensive directory of national organizations in print and contains detailed information on nonprofit membership organizations, such as founding date, membership composition and size, objectives, budget, publications and affiliations. New organizations were identified by EOA in a variety of ways: by annual IRS information on new groups that have filed for nonprofit status, web sites, various source books and directories of associations, trade associations journals, snowball sampling and write-ins from associations that want to be listed in the publication. Following Minkoff (1995), I coded each edition of EOA separately in order to gain complete information about old and new entries. Organizations were coded as panethnic if they are predominantly comprised of Asian American members or serve an Asian American population. For example, the Organization of Pan Asian American Women is panethnic because it includes all ethnic group members in the category of Asian or Asian American. The Society for Asian Art is also panethnic. Even though it is not solely comprised of members from Asian ethnic groups, such organizations facilitate the development or maintenance of a panethnic identity through the dissemination of Asian history and culture. Organizations that disbanded or were founded before the starting


point of the study, and organizations located in other countries for part or the entire duration of their lives, were not included in the sample. Within the Asian American community, I identified 55 panethnic organizations that formed between 1970 and 1998. The sample includes a diverse set of organizations that deal with political advocacy, service or resource provision, cultural production and/or distribution, professional interests, cross-cultural understanding, research, business, education, human rights and cultural heritage. The goal of these organizations is generally to promote the status of Asian Americans. A range of means, including public education, lobbying efforts and protest strategies, is used to reach this goal. All organizations in the sample pursue civil, political, cultural or economic rights for their constituency and can be conceptualized as similar to social movement organizations because they influence the formation of panethnic identities and function as communication links in local and national networks.

Dependent Variable The dependent variable, a count of pan-Asian organizational foundings, is coded for 30 metropolitan areas with the highest Asian American populations over a 29-year period. (See Table 1.) These metropolitan areas coincide with the largest metropolitan areas in the United States, and provide a sample of sizable Asian populations. However, simply having a high Asian population does not guarantee that different ethnic groups can coordinate their efforts to institutionalize an imagined panethnic community. National pan-Asian organizations formed in 12 of these metropolitan areas over the given time period, but it is still important to include all 30 metropolitan areas in the analysis to avoid sample selection bias.

Independent Variables All of the independent variables were created from 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000 Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) census data (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1971, 1985, 1995, 2003) unless stated otherwise. Because PUMS data are available in 10-year internals, I used linear interpolation to fill in the values in between census years. I also include a number of national-level variables to measure resource availability and political opportunities because past research has shown that such variables significantly affect the rate of formation among national organizations serving women and ethnic minorities (i.e., Minkoff 1995). However, most of the variables included in the analysis are measured at the metropolitan level because local processes are also important for panethnic organizational formation. For example, in the case of American Citizens for Justice, a national organization that deals with Asian American civil rights issues, local variables shaped the institutionalization of a panethnic community, as the effort to create the organization was spearheaded by local groups and leaders in response to a local event (Espiritu 1992, Zia 2000). Recent research on ethnic and panethnic organizations serving the Asian American community provides further evidence of how local demographics and events shape the organizational activities of national Asian American organizations (Okamoto 2005). Descriptive statistics for all variables are presented in Table 2.

10 • Social Forces Volume 85, Number 1 • September 2006 Table 1: 30 Metropolitan Areas with the Largest Asian American Populations

Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove, CA Atlanta, GA Baltimore, MD* Bergen-Passaic, NJ* Boston, MA Chicago, IL* Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX Denver, CO Detroit, MI* Fresno, CA Honolulu, HI Houston, TX Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA* Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon, NJ Minneapolis, MN Nassau-Suffolk, NY New York, NY-NJ* Newark, NJ Philadelphia, PA* Phoenix, AZ Portland, OR-WA Riverside-San Bernardino, CA Sacramento, CA* San Diego, CA* San Francisco-Oakland, CA* San Jose, CA Seattle-Everett, WA* Stockton, CA Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa, CA Washington, D.C., MD-VA* *National pan-Asian organizations formed in these locations, 1970-1998.

Competition Variables

The competition perspective suggests that increases in racially- and ethnicallydistinct others, contact between ethnic groups due to a decline in labor force segmentation, and a weakening economy will intensify competition and foster collective action.

In-migration Rate

To measure increases in racially distinct others in a metropolitan area, I constructed an in-migration variable. These data were gleaned from a set of questions from the PUMS regarding the respondent’s prior residence.1 If a respondent resided outside of the United States or in a different state or metropolitan area five years ago, the in-migrant variable was coded 1 and aggregated to the metropolitan area level. I then calculated the percent non-Asian in-migrants by dividing the

Institutional Panethnicity • 11 Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for Independent and Dependent Variables

Variables Mean S.D. Panethnic organizational foundings .07 .32 Attacks against Asians .02 .13 Ethnic heterogeneity .81 .09 Percent Asian 6.22 10.93 Total population size 14.51 .78 Federal funds 8.04 .37 Philanthropic funding 4.70 .17 Highly educated Asian population 62.14 12.08 Democratic presidential administration .31 .46 Democratic advantage .83 .37 Organizational density 2.00 4.46 Non-Asian in-migrant rate 13.34 8.49 Asian-white unemployment ratio .01 .05 Asian occupational segregation .71 .43 Asian occupational hierarchy -.01 .07 Poverty rate 7.96 3.12 Unemployment rate 5.74 2.04 Unemployment Ratio by Ethnic Group Chinese 1.03 .61 Filipino 1.50 1.59 Japanese .77 1.08 Korean 1.49 2.01 Non-ethnic Group Asian In-migration Rate Chinese 1.05 1.47 Filipino 1.02 1.34 Japanese 1.21 1.59 Korean 1.23 1.72 Occupational Hierarchy by Ethnic Group Chinese -.09 .10 Filipino -.08 .09 Japanese -.03 .08 Korean -.04 .08 Occupational Segregation by Ethnic Group Chinese 1.40 .37 Filipino 1.42 .38 Japanese 1.85 .75 Korean 1.45 .33 Note: N = 870

number of non-Asian in-migrants by the total metropolitan area population. The in-migration rate measuring the level of in-migration of ethnically-distinct others within the Asian category was also calculated as a percentage of the total metropolitan area. For example, the non-Chinese in-migration rate measures the percentage of Asian in-migrants in a metropolitan area that are not Chinese. According to competition theory, the entrance of ethnically-distinct groups into the metro area should dampen the possibilities for panethnic outcomes.


Unemployment Ratio

This ratio variable measures the extent to which two groups are experiencing relative disparity in terms of percent unemployed. Specifically, the unemployment ratio, Au/Wu, compares percent Asian unemployed and percent white unemployed. If Asians have a lower rate of unemployment than whites, the ratio might look like this: Au/Wu = 5/10, or .5. If the value of the ratio increases, this reflects a decrease in percent white unemployed or an increase in percent Asian unemployed. In either situation, the relative degree of disparity, or the extent to which the two groups are unequal, has actually declined. Here, whites have made gains relative to Asians and the relative resources of the groups have become more equal. Under these conditions, competition and collective action on the part of Asians should erupt. I constructed unemployment ratios comparing Asians with other racial groups, such as whites, and unemployment ratios comparing each Asian ethnic group to all other Asians.

State of the Economy

I include the overall unemployment rate and poverty rate to measure economic downturns in metropolitan areas.

Segregation Variables

The cultural division of labor theory suggests that it is the separation, not the integration, of racial groups within occupational spaces that leads to higher levels of collective action. I constructed two variables to measure the extent to which segmental and hierarchical cultural divisions of labor exist within metropolitan areas.

Occupational Segregation

The occupational segregation index (Charles 1992) measures the degree to which an ethnic group experiences occupational specialization in the following form,

1/ I x 6i 1n Ai / Ni -

ª¬1/I x 6i [1n A i / N i º¼

where Ai equals the number of workers from a specific Asian ethnic group in occupation i, Ni is the number of workers from all other Asian subgroups in occupation i, and I is the number of occupational categories. When the value of the index increases, ethnic groups are more occupationally specialized. To measure the degree to which Asians as a group are concentrated in certain occupations, Ai equals the number of Asian workers and Ni equals the number of non-Asian workers. When the index increases, Asians experience high levels of occupational segregation relative to other racial groups. The advantage of this occupational segregation index is that is it not influenced by the ethnic and racial composition of the labor force or the size of different occupational categories.

Occupational Hierarchy

The occupational hierarchy index (Diez Medrano 1994, Okamoto 2003) measures the degree to which an ethnic group is concentrated in low-paying occupations


in the following form,

A ls / Wls - 1/I x 6i A i / Wi where Als equals the total number of low-skill workers from a specific Asian subgroup, Wls is the total number of low-skill workers from all other Asian subgroups, I is the number of occupational categories, Ai is the total number of Asian subgroup members in occupation i, and Wi is the total number of workers from all other Asian subgroups in occupation i. When the index increases, there is more hierarchical segregation among Asian ethnic groups. I also calculated a measure of the extent to which Asians as a group are concentrated into lowpaying occupations relative to all other racial groups. Thirteen broad occupational census categories were used in the calculation of all occupational segregation indices at the metropolitan area level.2

Additional Variables

To properly estimate the effects of the main independent variables, I also include a number of additional variables that may explain organizational founding rates.

Resource Availability

The availability of resources has been an important predictor of the founding of social movements organizations and voluntary organizations. I created a variable measuring the annual amount of federal grants to state and local governments for community and regional development. These funds are locally administered to benefit low-income and other vulnerable groups in the community, and often support organizations that address affordable housing, new job creation and the expansion of business opportunities in urban areas. These funding figures are taken from the Budget of the U.S. Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2005, presented in billions, and measured at the national level. I also constructed a measure for philanthropic funding, which includes annual donations from corporations, individuals and foundations. This information is reported at the national level in Giving USA: The Annual Report on Philanthropy, a publication by the American Association Fund Raising Council (AAFRC) Trust for Philanthropy. Both variables are logged for ease of interpretation of estimates. Another important resource for the formation of organizations is a large, highly educated constituency. Because of its financial and social capital which can be used to organize the community, this population is viewed as a major resource. To measure the extent of a highly educated Asian American constituency, I include a metropolitan-level variable measuring the percentage of Asians, age 25-44, who have completed some college or higher.

Political Opportunity

A Democratic advantage at the federal and state levels should influence the extent to which the political environment is open to the needs and interests of minority groups. I include two variables to measure the political environment and potential opportunities for the founding of Asian American organizations. I created a national-level variable measuring whether the presidential administration in the


previous year was Democratic or not. In addition, I include a variable measuring Democratic advantage at the state level. If more Democrats than Republicans were elected to Congress in the previous year, this variable was coded 1. Data from the Statistical Abstract of the United States (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1974, 1978, 1985, 1989, 1995, 2000) were used to create both variables.

Organizational Dynamics

I include a measure of organizational density or the number of panethnic organizations currently active in a metropolitan area. Established panethnic organizations not only provide a working model for operations, but they promote the institutional acceptability and legitimation of organizing along a panethnic boundary.

Control Variables

I control for the size of metropolitan area by including log of total population and the size of the Asian population by including percent Asian. I also include a variable measuring the extent of ethnic diversity within the Asian population in each metropolitan area. If a multitude of Asian ethnic groups live in the metro area, it may be more likely that a diverse set of local community members will participate in the formation of the organization, and national leaders may choose to start a national organization in a location where they can reach local ethnic communities as well as national needs. Finally, given that contemporary explanations of panethnicity suggest that external threats, which are part of the racialization process, encourage groups to participate in panethnic collective action, I constructed a dummy variable measuring whether attacks against Asian Americans occurred in a metropolitan area in a given year. The data used to create this variable were taken from newspaper articles published in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune. (See Okamoto 2003 for a discussion of data collection procedures.)

Analytic Strategy Count data is typically analyzed using a Poisson or negative binomial regression model (Long 1997). Because zero counts in the data are greater than expected in a Poisson or negative binomial distribution, I use a zero-inflated regression model (Lambert 1992, Long 1997). This model assumes a dual-state process involving a zero-response state with probability pi and a non-zero-response state with probability 1 - pi, where pi is an unknown parameter to be estimated. In other words, the zero-inflation model assumes that there are two latent groups in the sample with two different distributions: the first state refers to those metropolitan areas that always have zero counts, while the second state refers to other metropolitan areas with organizational formation frequencies that follow a Poisson or negative binomial distribution. Diagnostic tests reveal that the dependent variable follows a Poisson-like distribution. To confirm this, I estimated a negative binomial regression and the likelihood test indicated that alpha was not significantly different from zero,


suggesting that the negative binomial model does not fit the data better than the Poisson model. In addition, Vuong tests show that the zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) model fits the data better than a Poisson model (Vuong 1989). Robust standard errors, adjusted for the clustering of organizational foundings within metropolitan areas that may be non-independent across years, were estimated. In addition, all models were run with fixed effects for each metropolitan area to control for any unmeasured factors associated with the different metropolitan areas.

Results I documented the formation of 55 pan-Asian national organizations with Asian American memberships and/or constituencies from 1970 to 1998, within the 30 metropolitan areas under study. Examining the pattern of organizational formation over time, I find that the number of pan-Asian organizations has increased since 1970 and throughout the 1980s, with the high point of formations occurring in 1980 (Figure 1). A smaller number of national Asian American organizations formed in the 1990s which may be due to a rapid expansion of diverse Asian populations or perhaps Asian Americans are becoming assimilated into mainstream culture with each passing generation and look to mainstream institutions for social and economic support. Table 3 presents the results of nested zero-inflation Poisson regression models. I include all of the theoretically-derived covariates in the Poisson part of the model because I am primarily interested in the contextual factors that influence organizational formation among metropolitan areas which are at higher risk. The inflated part of the model includes simple demographic variables to predict the probability of the zero state.3 The first model includes control variables in the Poisson part of the model. The second model estimates the effects of resource availability, organizational dynamics and political opportunity, net of controls, on organizational formation. The third model adds boundary formation variables and represents the full model. It is important to note that the comparison of log likelihoods from Model 2 and Model 3 indicates that including the boundary formation variables significantly improves the fit of the model. I discuss the findings from the three models below. The results from Model 1 indicate that one of the control variables, percent Asian, is significant. An increasing Asian population raises the odds of a panethnic organization forming in a given metropolitan area by six times.4 In the inflated part of the model, the increasing size of the metropolitan area and a growing Asian population leads to a higher probability of the zero state. In other words, in areas with large overall and Asian populations, there are fewer organizational foundings.5 It could be that in such areas, Asians are forming organizations along ethnic rather than panethnic lines, and/or that increasingly large metropolitan areas make it difficult to organize a panethnic community. Model 2 shows that a number of the variables used to predict the formation of social movements organizations are significant. Interestingly, the effects of federal and philanthropic funding are both negative: federal grants to local communities as well as foundation, corporate and individual donations actually hinder new organizational activity. Past research reveals that funders often view


19 70 19 72 19 74 19 76 19 78 19 80 19 82 19 84 19 86 19 88 19 90 19 92 19 94 19 96 19 98

Number of Foundings

Figure 1. Pan-Asian Organizational Foundings in the United States, 1970-1998 1970 1 12 1971 0 1972 3 10 1973 2 8 1974 3 1975 1 6 1976 3 1977 1 4 1978 3 1979 5 2 1980 10 1981 4 0 1982 3 1983 3 1984 4 Years 1985 1 1986 2

Asian Americans as a population that is not in need due to the model minority stereotype (Kimura 1990, Espiritu 1992, Shiao 1998). It is likely that philanthropic and federal funds are directed toward other groups which are able to frame their needs and interests as more compelling, and this dampens the ability of Asians to garner financial support to start organizations. Another type of resource, the size of the highly educated sector of the Asian American population, has a positive effect on the formation of panethnic organizations. This finding suggests that such a constituency provides financial and social capital as well as leadership for organizational efforts. The results also show that one of the political opportunity variables is significant: when the federal administration in the previous year is Democratic, this increases the odds of panethnic organizational formation, suggesting that political opportunities at the national level influence organizing based on a panethnic boundary. However, there is no effect of Democratic advantage on panethnic organizational formation, but the density of panethnic organizations raises the number of foundings, just as organizational ecology perspectives predicted. In fact, an increase in the number of panethnic organizations in a metropolitan area raises the likelihood of new foundings by 21 percent.6 Model 3 presents the full model. The results show that three boundary formation variables are significant. When the rate of non-Asian in-migrants to a metropolitan area increases, this raises the odds of the formation of panethnic organizations. This result supports competition theory which claims that a rising supply of racially-distinct workers intensifies competition and collective action. Another measure of competition, the unemployment ratio, is not significant. As the relative resources of Asians and whites become more equal, this does not spur the formation of panethnic organizations as competition theory would suggest.7 Continuing to explore the effects of the boundary formation variables, I find that occupational segregation has a small, significant effect on panethnic foundings. In addition, the estimate for occupational hierarchy is large and highly

Institutional Panethnicity • 17 Table 3: Zero-Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Regression Models Estimating the Effects of Independent Variables on the Formation of Pan-Asian Organizations, 1970-1998 Independent Variable Poisson Part Control Variables Attacks against Asians Ethnic heterogeneity Percent Asian Total population Additional Variables Federal funding

Model 1

-.43 (.47) -7.35 (5.75) 1.83*** (.60) .12 (.30) —

Philanthropic funding

—

Highly educated Asians

—

Democratic administration

—

Democratic advantage

—

Panethnic organization density

—

Boundary Formation Variables Non-Asian in-migration rate

Model 2

.77** (.24) 2.24 (2.51) 1.48 (2.13) .39 (.26)

.66** (.25) 5.21* (2.73) -4.19 (6.45) .69* (.38)

-.43* (.26) -6.59*** (1.09) 5.28*** (1.58) .74*** (.22) -.21 (.30) .19*** (.02)

-.35 (.37) -6.29*** (2.03) 3.61* (1.96) .77*** (.22) .12 (.35) .23*** (.03)

—

—

Asian-white unemployment ratio

—

—

Asian occupational segregation

—

—

Asian occupational hierarchy

—

—

Poverty rate

—

—

Unemployment rate

—

—

Intercept Inflated Part Percent Asian Total population Ethnic heterogeneity Intercept -2 log likelihood McFadden’s R-squared

Model 3

4.22 (6.24)

19.00** (6.22)

-4.03*** (1.25) -2.21** (.82) .96 (5.32) 3.87*** (1.06) 333.30 .18

-7.80*** (1.97) -3.63*** (1.00) 7.90*** (2.07) 1.35*** (.45) 236.65 .42

6.82* (4.23) 6.47 (9.24) .24* (.18) 3.63*** (.76) -.11 (.09) 10.32 (10.7) 10.30 (9.25) -1.91 (1.24) -4.46* (2.30) 7.78** (3.16) 1.65 (.99) 223.37 .45

*p .05 **p .01 ***p .001 (one-tailed tests) Note: N = 870. Robust standard errors are presented in parentheses. The Poisson part of the model estimates the non-zero-state probability as a poisson function, and the inflated part estimates the zero-state probability as a logistic function. Values for likelihood ratio tests are as follows: Model 1 vs. Model 2 = 96.65 (p .001, d.f. = 6; Model 2 vs. Model 3 = 13.28 (p .05. d.f. = 6); Model 1 vs. Model 3 = 109.93 (p .001, d.f. = 12).


significant. This suggests that when Asians find themselves concentrated in the lower levels of the occupational structure, group boundaries are heightened, leading to panethnic mobilization. Finally, the unemployment rate and poverty rate were not significant, indicating that economic downturns have no effect on panethnic organizational foundings. In Model 3, the effects of the variables measuring resource availability, political opportunities and organizational dynamics remain highly robust, with the exception of federal funding for community development, which is no longer significant in the full model. Finally, three of the control variables in Model 2 are significant. An increasing Asian population, attacks against Asians and a large total population in the metropolitan area increase the likelihood of new panethnic organizational activity. To find out if competition and segregation between Asian ethnic groups have any effect on panethnic organizational formation, I turn to the models in Table 4 that include variables decomposed by Asian ethnic group.8 The results show that ethnic occupational hierarchy is highly significant and negative across all models: when Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese and Koreans are occupationally segregated in low-paying occupations vis-a-vis other Asians, this dampens the likelihood of panethnic organizational formation. This supports the cultural division of labor perspective which predicted that when different Asian ethnic groups are separated from one another in the occupational structure, ethnic boundaries will be heightened, the creation and maintenance of interethnic networks will decline, and panethnic organizational formation will be less likely to occur. Ethnic occupational segregation is negative and significant when the Chinese are segregated, but the segregation indices for the other Asian ethnic groups do not have an effect on panethnic foundings. Competition theory predicted that competition between Asian ethnic groups would decrease the likelihood that pan-Asian organizations would form. The results reveal that the unemployment ratios comparing specific ethnic groups to all other Asians were not significant in three of the models. In other words, a decrease in disparity between Chinese, Filipinos and Japanese respectively and all other Asians has no effect on the likelihood of panethnic organizational formation. For Koreans, a decrease in disparity actually facilitated new organizational activity, which is counter to competition theory predictions. The effects of the in-migration variables were highly significant for Chinese and Japanese. For example, in Model 2, as the percentage of non-Japanese Asian in-migrants increases, this raises the likelihood of panethnic organizational formation. Competition theory posited that when ethnically-distinct others enter the metropolitan area, there will be competition for scarce resources, leading to less panethnic activity since each ethnic group is collectively working to improve or maintain its own share of the resources. This claim is not supported here. Instead, an increase in Asian in-migrants leads to new panethnic organizational activity, which is likely due to the need of new Asian ethnic populations.

Discussion and Conclusion New organizational forms based on collective identities emerged in the 1970s, including those that brought together and served distinct ethnic groups under a

Institutional Panethnicity • 19 Table 4: Zero-Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Regression Models Estimating Ethnic-Specific Boundary Formation Variables on the Formation of Pan-Asian Organizations, 1970-1998

Model 1 Model 2 Independent Variable Chinese Filipino Ethnic-specific Boundary Formation Variables a In-migration rate 1.60*** 6.25 (.49) (5.86)

Model 3 Japanese

Model 4 Korean

.82*** (.37)

.68 (.54)

Unemployment ratio

.05 (.46)

-.45 (.34)

-.05 (.20)

.08* (.04)

Occupational segregation

-.59* (.34)

-.38 (.34)

-.20 (.22)

-.52 (.33)

Occupational hierarchy

-.03*** (.01)

-.04** (.02)

-.02*** (.01)

-.11** (.06)

Intercept

1.31* (.82)

1.56* (.82)

1.40* (.82)

2.78 (5.98)

-4.47** (1.82)

-4.23* (2.41)

-1.11* (.57)

1.04 (1.40)

Total population

-3.23*** (1.22)

-3.30* (1.58)

-3.20* (1.66)

5.21 (5.85)

Ethnic heterogeneity

7.74** (3.05)

7.75* (3.60)

7.79* (4.00)

2.69 (2.11)

Intercept

-1.89 (1.44)

-1.89 (1.44)

-2.03 (1.19)

6.37 (5.60)

217.54 .46

219.84 .46

221.71 .45

226.17 .44

Inflated Part Percent Asian

-2 log-likelihood McFadden’s R-squared

*p .05 **p .01 ***p .001 (one-tailed tests) Note: N = 870. Robust standard errors are presented in parentheses. Variables measuring political opportunity, resources, organizational dynamics, control variables, and Asian boundary formation variables are included in the models but are not shown here. The Poisson part of the model estimates the non-zero-state probability as a poisson function, and the inflated part estimates the zero-state probability as a logistic function. a In Model 1, this variable measures the percentage of non-Chinese Asian in-migrants who have entered the metropolitan area in a given year.

larger unified panethnic framework. Past studies on panethnicity emphasize the importance of racialization, or the ways in which groups are viewed and treated as monolithic and homogeneous by outsiders, in the formation of panethnic organizations. However, such studies do not directly address the role of local


contextual factors in the consolidation of group boundaries. This paper fills a gap in the literature and examines the structural conditions that lead to the institutionalization of a socially constructed panethnic community. Using a new longitudinal data set of Asian American organizations, I test a theory of panethnicity which specifies that competition and segregation at different boundary levels will influence organizational formation based on a panethnic boundary. The results from the regression models clearly indicate that certain types of political opportunities and resources encourage the formation of pan-Asian organizations, and established panethnic organizations in metropolitan areas provide a legitimate organizational form for others to follow. The analyses also demonstrate that the ways in which racial and ethnic groups are structured in relation to one another, as measured by the boundary formation variables, influence panethnic outcomes. Net of all other variables, I find that the occupational segregation of Asian Americans encourages the formation of national pan-Asian organizations. When Asians are concentrated in the occupational structure, this not only heightens a panethnic boundary, leading Asian Americans to found their own institutions, but it also signals that in the post-Civil Rights era, Asian Americans were not completely integrated into mainstream society. These organizations, largely based on the idea that Asian Americans have specific needs and issues as well as shared experiences of historic and contemporary discrimination, were formed to effectively navigate within the larger society and to negotiate the Asian American community’s social, economic and political position. In addition, as predicted, the segregation of specific Asian ethnic groups – Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese and Koreans – into the lower part of the occupational structure discourages panethnicity. Finally, the results show that competition variables, such as the overall poverty rate and unemployment ratio comparing resource levels of whites and Asians, do not have an effect on new organizational activity. In the analysis including ethnicspecific variables, I find that competitive efforts between Asian ethnic groups are not present. In fact, the effects of unemployment ratios comparing specific ethnic groups with all other Asians are positive or non-significant, and the inmigration of different Asian ethnic groups actually facilitates the formation of pan-Asian organizations. Even though not all ethnic group members identify as Asian American, the results suggest that Asian in-migrants – native and foreignborn – contribute to a population that can be served by new organizations with a diverse Asian American constituency. Why wasn’t competition more central in explaining institutional panethnicity? The distribution of the different types of organizations in the data set indicates that more than one-fourth of the pan-Asian organizations formed between 1970 and 1998 were political organizations that shared the common goals of promoting civil, economic and political rights for Asian Americans as well as Asians in their countries of origin. For example, the Asian American Voters Coalition promotes the equal treatment of Asian Americans in the U.S. political system and sponsors voter registration and education drives. The Committee against Anti-Asian Violence works to eradicate racism and violence against Asian Americans, and offers services such as legal consultation and education. Another fourth of the


organizations were professional organizations with Asian American memberships. These organizations often had the shared goals of developing networks, encouraging equal employment opportunities, and exchanging knowledge in the field. But members in these organizations had more than their professions in common. The stated goals of the Asian American Journalists Association are not simply to increase employment of Asian/Pacific American journalists, but also to encourage fair and accurate news coverage of Asian/Pacific American issues. Similarly, one of the stated goals of the Association of Asian/Pacific American Artists is “to encourage equal employment opportunities in all aspects of the entertainment industry in order to assure realistic images and portrayals of Asian/ Pacific people as they exist in real life and in the mainstream of America.” (Gale Research Co. 1999) These data suggest that pan-Asian organizations form to fill a need that is not being met by the market or state. As Espiritu and Ong (1994) have previously noted, pan-Asian organizations address general Asian American issues, such as political representation and stereotypes in the media, which are adaptive responses to the dominant group. These findings resonate with Vo’s (1996, 2004) study of the Asian Business Association in San Diego: members joined the organization because of shared professional interests and common experiences of economic exclusion and employment discrimination. Overall, these findings suggest that pan-Asian organizations are not forming because Asian Americans are in competition with other racial groups for resources. Instead, Asian Americans find themselves without equal opportunities and fair treatment, and therefore form pan-Asian organizations to attain these collective goods and create a supportive community within which to strategize about collective issues. This research has emphasized the importance of understanding the contextual factors that encourage or deter the institutionalization of a socially constructed panethnic community. Considering competition and segregation processes that address the structured relations between groups at different boundary levels in addition to factors such as political opportunities, resources and organizational dynamics, provides a more complete understanding of panethnic organizational foundings. Future research should focus on the ways in which panethnicity is expressed and negotiated at the organizational level, as well as the contextual factors that facilitate the survival of these organizations over time.

Notes 1. The in-migration variable is a considerable improvement over variables using only immigration data because it includes native and foreign-born migrants to metropolitan areas. 2. See Okamoto (2003) for details regarding segregation indices. 3. The mean variation inflation factor (VIF) for the full model is 1.67 and the VIF for each individual variable is 3.0 or less, which suggests that multicollinearity is not a problem. 4. To calculate the odds, the coefficient is exponentiated (eb).


5. It is actually not contradictory for an increasing Asian population to lead to fewer organizational foundings in the inflated model, and then to have a positive effect on organizational foundings in the Poisson part of the model. This effect in the Poisson part of the model simply suggests that among those metropolitan areas which are at higher risk, percent Asian facilitates new organizational activity along a panethnic boundary. 6. Percent change is calculated as (eb - 1)*100. 7. I also included an unemployment ratio comparing percent unemployed Latino and black with percent unemployed Asian. The coefficient for this variable was not significant. 8. I do not include analyses for Asian Indians and Vietnamese because data on these groups are not available for the entire time period under study.

References Bonacich, Edna. 1973. “A Theory of Middleman Minorities.” American Sociological Review 37:583-94. Chan, Sucheng. 1991. Asian Americans: An Interpretive History. Twayne Publishers. Charles, Maria. 1992. “Cross-National Variation in Occupational Sex Segregation.” American Sociological Review 57:483-503. Cornell, Stephen. 1990. “Land, Labour, and Group Formation: Blacks and Indians in the United States.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 13:368-88. Daniels, Roger. 1988. Asian America: Chinese and Japanese in the United States since 1850. University of Washington Press. Diez Medrano, Juan. 1994. “The Effects of Ethnic Segregation and Ethnic Competition on Political Mobilization in the Basque Country, 1988.” American Sociological Review 59:873-89. Espiritu, Yen Le. 1992. Asian American Panethnicity: Bridging Institutions and Identities. Temple University Press. Espiritu, Yen Le and Paul Ong. 1994. “Class Constraints on Racial Solidarity Among Asian Americans.” Pp. 295-321. The New Asian Immigration in Los Angeles and Global Restructuring. P. Ong, E. Bonacich and L. Cheng, editors. Temple University Press. Gale Research Company. Encyclopedia of Associations, Volume 1, National Organizations (editions 1-34). Detroit, MI: Gale Research Group.


Hannan, Michael, and Glenn R. Carroll. 1992. Dynamics of Organizational Population. Oxford University Press. Hannan, Michael, and John Freeman. 1989. Organizational Ecology. Harvard University Press. Hechter, Michael. 1978. “Group Formation and the Cultural Division of Labor.” American Journal of Sociology 84:293-318. ______. 1999. [1975]. Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in British National Development 1536-1966. Transaction Publishers. Kibria, Nazli. 1997. “The Construction of ‘Asian American’: Reflections on Intermarriage and Ethnic Identity among Second Generation Chinese and Korean Americans.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 20(3):522-44. ______. 2002. Becoming Asian American: Second-Generation Chinese and Korean American Identities. Johns Hopkins University Press. Kimura, Naomi. 1990. “A Study of Charitable Giving and Financial Support to Asian Pacific Human Service Organizations in Los Angeles.” Los Angeles, CA: Special Services for Groups. Kriesi, Hanspeter. 1996. “The Organizational Structure of New Social Movements in a Political Context.” Pp. 152-84. Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. D. McAdam, J. McCarthy and M. Zald, editors. Cambridge University Press. Kwong, Peter. 1987. The New Chinatown. Hill and Wang. Lai, Him Mark. 1987. “Historical Development of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association/Huiguan System.” Pp. 13-52. Chinese American: History and Perspectives, 1987. San Francisco, CA: Chinese Historical Society of America. Lambert, D. 1992. “Zero-Inflated Poisson Regression with an Application to Defects in Manufacturing.” Technometrics 34:1-14. Lee, Don Chang. 1977. “Korean Community Structures in America.” Korean Journal 17:48-60. Lien, Pei-te. 2001. The Making of Asian America through Political Participation. Temple University Press. Long, J. Scott. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Sage Publications.


Lopez, David, and Yen Le Espiritu. 1990. “Panethnicity in the United States: A Theoretical Framework.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 13:198-224. McCammon, Holly. 2001. “Stirring up Suffrage Sentiment: The Formation of the State Woman Suffrage Organizations, 1866-1914.” Social Forces 80:449-80. McCarthy, John D. 1996. Constraints and Opportunities in Adopting, Adapting, and Inventing. Pp. 141-51. Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. D. McAdam, J. McCarthy and M. Zald, editors. Cambridge University Press. McCarthy, John D., Mark Wolfson, David P. Baker and Elaine Mosakowski. 1988. “The Founding of Social Movement Organizations: Local Citizens’ Groups Opposing Drunken Driving.” Pp. 71-84. Ecological Models of Organizations. G.R. Carroll, editor. Ballinger. Meetam Colin W. and Stephen Wyn Williams. 1998. “Internal Colonialism and Cultural Divisions of Labour in the Soviet Republic of Estonia.” Nations and Nationalism 4(3):363-88. Min, Pyong Gap. 1995. Asian Americans: Contemporary Trends and Issues. Sage Publications. Minkoff, Debra. 1995. Organizing for Equality: The Evolution of Women’s and Racial-Ethnic Organizations in America, 1955-1985. Rutgers University Press. Nagel, Joane. 1995. “American Indian Ethnic Renewal: Politics and the Resurgence of Ethnicity.” American Sociological Review 60:947-65. Okamoto, Dina G. 2003. “Toward a Theory of Panethnicity: Explaining Collective Action among Asian Americans.” American Sociological Review 68:811-42. ______. 2005. “Boundary Spanning among Asian American Organizations.” Working paper, Russell Sage Foundation. Olzak, Susan. 1992. The Dynamics of Ethnic Competition and Conflict. Stanford University Press. Olzak, Susan, and Elizabeth West. 1991. “Ethnic Conflict and the Rise and Fall of Ethnic Newspapers.” American Sociological Review 56: 458-474. Olzak, Susan, Suzanne Shanahan and Elizabeth H. McEneaney. 1996. “Poverty, Segregation, and Race Riots: 1960 to 1993.” American Sociological Review 61:590-613.


Padilla, Felix M. 1985. Latino Ethnic Consciousness: The Case of Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans in Chicago. University of Notre Dame Press. Peled, Yoav. 1998. “Towards a Redefinition of Jewish Nationalism in Israel? The Enigma of Shas.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 21:703-27 Portes, Alejandro. 1984. “The Rise of Ethnicity: Determinants of Ethnic Perception Among Cuban Exiles in Miami.” American Sociological Review 49:383-97. Ragin, Charles. 1979. “Ethnic Political Mobilization: The Welsh Case.” American Sociological Review 44:619-35. Shiao, Jiannbin Lee. 1998. “The Nature of the Nonprofit Sector: Professionalism Versus Identity Politics in Private Policy Definitions of Asian Pacific Americans.” Asian American Policy Review 8:17-43. Takaki, Ronald, and Rebecca Stefoff. 1994. From the Land of Morning Calm: The Koreans in America. Chelsey House Publishers. Tilly, Charles. 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. Addison-Wesley. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1974, 1978, 1985, 1989, 1995, 2000. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1971, 1985, 1995, 2003. Census of Population and Housing: 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 Public Use Microdata Sample: 5-Percent Sample [Computer file]. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Van Dyke, Nella, and Sarah Soule. 2002. “Structural Social Change and the Mobilizing Effect of Threat: Explaining Levels of Patriot and Militia Organizing in the United States.” Social Problems 49:497-520. Vo, Linda Trinh. 2004. Mobilizing an Asian American Community. Temple University Press. ______. 1996. “Asian Immigrants, Asian Americans, and the Politics of Economic Mobilization in San Diego.” Amerasia Journal 22:89-108. Vuong, Quang H. 1989. “Likelihood Ratio Tests Model Selection and Non-Nested Hypotheses.” Econometrica 57:307-34. Wei, William. 1993. The Asian American Movement. Temple University Press. Zia, Helen. 2000. Asian American Dreams: The Emergence of an American People. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.