Perspectives on Latino-Black Relations in the U.S.:
Mass and Elite-level Analyses*
*(Or…here’s part of what I’ve been working on the last 8 months)
Rodney E. Hero(With LNS Colleagues, and with Robert Preuhs)
CSDP Presentation
May 1, 2008
Some Issues addressed in (my) recent research:
An overview and summary of some recent work:
• Demographic change and the Evolution of American politics
• ‘Minority’ and other (inter)group relations
Ideas and/or Interests
How these may differ in different arenas of politics federalism, “scope of conflict,” etc. - Institutions
Previous related research1. Mass-level:* Recent survey findings on Latino Attitudes
• Raleigh-Durham study (McClain, JOP 2006) – on Latinos and stereotyping• Latino National Survey
2. Other research questions: Institutions and Policy (Representation)
* Urban politics focus (case studies, and aggregate studies) Browning, Marshall, and Tabb (1984, and several later) McClain – on socioeconomic and political competition in cities
…Mixed, complicated findings * Little/no research at level of the States regarding Inter-group relations (studies focus on one group or another)
Often assumes conflict/competition OR cooperation
This presentation
a. Begin to bring together two strands of research on issues regarding Latinos and Blacks (and Whites)
* public opinion (mass)* representative institutions (elites/national)
b. Builds on prior research -- evidence from the LNS and elsewhere regarding questions about competition or cooperation assumption of Latino inter-group relations
The Hypothesized Relative Importance of Ideas and Interests at the National v. Local (Institutions) Levelsof American Politics in Relation to Black and Latino Relations
• National
Ideas Interests
Local
How much does Latinos doing well depend on African Americans doing well?
Respondents in 2006 Latino National Survey “Linked Fate” with African Americans
Nativity Some/A lot
Native Born (2408)1 53.4%
Foreign-born2 (5704) 67.0
Latino Sub-Groups
Colombians (139) 66.9
Cubans (419) 61.3
Dominicans (335) 72.2
El Salvadorans (406) 68.2
Guatemalans (149) 64.4
Mexicans (5690) 62.4
Puerto Ricans (759) 61.81 The numbers in the parentheses represent the number of respondents in that category
2 The operational definition for the foreign-born includes all persons born outside the U.S., including being born in Puerto Rico.
Extent of Commonality among Latinos regarding Jobs, Education and Income Attainment with African Americans and Whites
Respondents in 2006 Latino National Survey
Commonality with African Americans
Commonality with Whites
Nativity Some/A lot Some/A lot
Native Born (2408)1 67.9% 56.1%
Foreign-born2 (5704) 45.9 45.1
Latino Sub-Groups
Colombians (139) 46.8 53.2
Cubans (419) 51.3 55.4
Dominicans (335) 53.7 43.6
El Salvadorans (406) 48.8 45.1
Guatemalans (149) 40.9 43.6
Mexicans (5690) 51.0 47.2
Puerto Ricans (759) 65.5 54.21 The numbers in the parentheses represent the number of respondents in that category
2 The operational definition for the foreign-born includes all persons born outside the U.S., including being born in Puerto Rico.
Extent of Commonality among Latinos regarding their Political Situation with African Americans and WhitesRespondents in 2006
Latino National SurveyCommonality with African Americans
Commonality with Whites
Nativity Some/A lot Some/A lot
Native Born (2408)1 62.8% 48.7%
Foreign-born2 (5704) 43.4 64.1
Latino Sub-Groups
Colombians (139) 49.6 41.7
Cubans (419) 51.3 49.9
Dominicans (335) 52.8 43.3
El Salvadorans (406) 45.3 40.9
Guatemalans (149) 40.9 39.6
Mexicans (5690) 46.9 42.6
Puerto Ricans (759) 60.6 47.71 The numbers in the parentheses represent the number of respondents in that category
2 The operational definition for the foreign-born includes all persons born outside the U.S., including being born in Puerto Rico.
Unpacking Latino Views further:Contexts (‘traditional’ vs ‘emerging’ states)
• The Latino population, especially immigrants, has The Latino population, especially immigrants, has moved well beyond traditional states such as moved well beyond traditional states such as California, Texas, and New YorkCalifornia, Texas, and New York to include to include considerable and increasing presence in such states as considerable and increasing presence in such states as Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa and North CarolinaArkansas, Georgia, Iowa and North Carolina..
• These latter states -- These latter states -- Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa and Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa and North CarolinaNorth Carolina – are also states that had previously – are also states that had previously had little experience with immigrants and/or have had little experience with immigrants and/or have substantially large African-Americansubstantially large African-American populations.populations.
Latinos Seeing Commonalitieswith Other Groups
• Response Choices: nothing, little, some, a lot, DK/no answer
• Thinking about issues like job opportunities, educational attainment or income, how much do [selected ethnic term] have in common with other racial groups in the United States today? Would you say [selected ethnic term] have….. in common
with African Americans:
• In all 7 states more respondents say “some” or “a lot” -- ranging from 46% to 57% -- than say “nothing” or “little.”
• However, in the 4 “emerging states” all are at 50 percent or less saying “some” or “a lot,” while more in the other states say “some” or “a lot”: CA (51%), TX (52 %), NY (57%)
• Thinking about issues like job opportunities, educational attainment or income, how much do [selected ethnic term]have in common with other racial groups in the United States today? Would you say [selected ethnic term] have
common with whites:
• Varied pattern, hard to summarize, except that in all states fewer respondents answer “some” or “a lot” than they did for the similar question regarding Blacks. Also, CA only state where more say ‘nothing/little’ than ‘some/a lot’ (47%/44%).
Socioeconomic Commonalitieswith Whites
Latinos’ views ofInter–Group
Competition with Blacks
JOBS:
Some have suggested that [selected ethnic term] are in competition with African Americans
.…Would you tell me if you believe there is strong competition weak competition or no competition at all with African Americans? How about…
• “competition in getting jobs”
• In all seven states (only) about a quarter (25-28 percent) perceived “strong competition” and about 15-20 percent or so sees “weak competition;” the plurality choice in every state is “no competition at all.”
• New York stands out in having clearly the highest proportion, 36 percent, saying “strong competition.”
Competition in…“having access to education and quality schools?
• In 4 emerging states, 47-52 percent say “no competition at all;” consistently 25-27 percent in these states say “strong competition.”
• Percent saying “strong competition” is highest in NY (35%) and TX (32%)
Competition re “getting jobs with the city or state government?”
• 42 to 48% in emerging states say “no competition,” and roughly 28 % say “strong competition.” GA stands out in this group, with 33% percent saying “strong competition”
• The other three states tend to have higher percentage (than “emerging”)
• saying “strong competition”: CA 35%; TX 33% and, most strikingly, NY 43%.
Competition in…Political Representation
• “Having [selected ethnic term] representatives in elected office” In all 4 emerging states
• ‘no competition’ is the most common answer (41, 39, 42, and 28 percent for AR, GA, IA, and NC, respectively). GA is highest with “strong competition,” 36%.
• IN CONTRAST:
• In the three others states, ‘strong competition’ is the most common answer: CA 38%, TX 38%, and NY 42%
Concept of “Linked Fate” with Others
How much does [Latinos] doing well depend on African Americans doing well?
• Percent saying “some” or “a lot” in 4 emerging states ranges from 58% (NC) to 65% (AR).
• Interestingly, percent saying “some” or “a lot” is highest in NY (67%).
• In TX is 64% and in CA 53% say this.
II. Latino-Black Relations -- Elite level:Latinos and Blacks in the U.S. House (using ‘advocacy group’ evidence)
Dimensions examined:
Agendas (advocacy group scorecards)
Positions (advocacy group scorecards)
* Voting patterns (Black and Latino MCs voting, on advocacy group scorecards)*
Initial Findings on Salience and Congruence
(Supporting data follow on next 2 slides)
• Salience (agendas, in NAACP and NHLA scorecards)similarity/overlap on group scorecards little overlap found
• Congruence (positions, in NAACP and NHLA scorecards)) very high (complete congruence when scorecards do
overlap)
We also examined (a) Congressional testimony and (b) filing of “friend of the court” (amicus) briefs.
* Overall: We found no evidence of conflict; we think there is lots of tacit non-cooperation/independence, (coordination?)*
Policy Salience and Congruence of Minority Advocacy Groups’ Agendas(Number of cases included in Congressional Scorecards
and Degree of Salience and Congruence)
Congress NHLA NAACPShared Salience
(% of NHLA Total; % of NAACP Total)
Congruence(% of Shared)
105th
(1997-1998)33 23
7(21.1%; 30.4%)
7(100%)
106th
(1999-2000)36 30
6(16.67%; 20.0%)
6(100%)
107th
(2001-2002)34 50
12(35.3%; 24.0%)
12(100%)
108th
(2003-2004)24 63
3(12.5%; 4.8%)
3(100%)
Total 127 16628
(22.1%; 16.9%)28
(100%)
010
2030
40
AID
S/H
ealth
Affi
rmat
ive
Act
ion
Aid
to s
tate
s
Ban
krup
tcy
Ove
rhau
l
Bud
get
Civ
il R
ight
s
Crim
e
Cub
a
Eco
nom
ic M
obili
ty
Edu
catio
n
Ele
ctio
n R
efor
m
Fai
th-B
ased
Initi
ativ
e
For
eign
Aid
- A
frica
Gun
Con
trol
Hat
e C
rimes
Hea
lth C
are
Imm
igra
tion
Inte
rnat
iona
l Rel
atio
ns
Judi
cial
Nom
inat
ion
Labo
r
Lang
uage
Litig
atio
n
Oth
er
Tax
and
Spe
ndin
g P
olic
y
Tel
ecom
mun
icat
ions
Vot
ing
Rig
hts
Wel
fare
Counts of Votes Included on ScorecardsFigure 1. Salient Votes by Topic
NAACP Votes NHLA Votes
NAACP and NHLA Votes
Basic Evidence on
Voting Patterns
Mean NAACP and NHLA Support, by Party and Racial/Ethnic Background of the Member of Congress, 104th – 108th Congresses.
NAACP Scores
BD=Black Dems, LD=Latino Dems, WD=White Dems, WR=White Republicans, BR=Black Republicans, LR=Latino Republicans
WRLR
LDBD
WD
LRWR
LD
BR
WD
BD
BR
WDLD
LR
BD
WR
BR
WD
BD
LR
LD
WRWR
WD
BR
LD
BD
LR
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
01
00
NA
AC
P S
upp
ort
104th Congress 105th Congress 106th Congress 107th Congress 108th Congress
NAACP Support Scores
NHLA Support Scores
LR
LDBD
WR
WD
WR
LD
BR
BD
LR
WDWD
LD
LR
BD
WR
BR
WR
LR
BR
BD
LDWD
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
01
00N
HL
A S
uppo
rt
105th Congress 106th Congress 107th Congress 108th Congress
NHLA Support Scores
ExaminingVoting Patterns
Theoretical Expectations
Design
Findings
Predicted Effects of Black and Latino Representation and Minority Population Proportions
on NAACP and NHLA Scorecards
Cooperation/Compatibility
Tacit Non-Cooperation
Independence
Conflict/Competition
NAACPScorecard
NHLAScorecard
NAACPScorecard
NHLAScorecard
NAACPScorecard
NHLA Scorecard
Repstv.
Black Rep Positive Positive Positive No Effect Positive Negative
Latino Rep Positive Positive No Effect Positive Negative Positive
Population
Proportion Black Positive Positive Positive No Effect Positive Negative
Proportion Latino
Positive Positive No Effect Positive Negative Positive
Note: Cell entries report the direction of the expected effect. No effect indicates there an expected null relationship.
Two Questions regarding Voting patterns
• Degree to which descriptive representation, partisan affiliation, racial/ethnic constituency and class affect voting patterns
• Most important of the two (here):
Degree to which racial and ethnic descriptive representation leads to support that crosses racial/ethnic groups
Design
• 104th – 108th U.S. House Members Ratings
• NAACP and NHLA Scorecards as Dependent variables Limitations of these
Limitations of alternative measures
• Independent Variables– Race/ethnicity of legislator– Party Affiliation (Republican dummy variable)– District Demographics
• Racial Composition• Social and Economic Indicators (urbanization, poverty, income, education)
– Interactions between Party and Race/Ethnicity
Estimates of NAACP and NHLA Scorecard Ratings, 104th through the 108th Congresses
[abbreviated Table]
Independent Variables104th 105th Congress 106th Congress
107th Congress108th Congress
NAACP NAACP NHLA NAACP NHLA NAACP NHLA NAACP NHLA
Rep
BlackRepresentative
28.40***(3.73)
11.45**(1.44)
16.62**(4.00)
10.72**(4.00)
15.09**(3.40)
12.52**(2.78)
14.49**(2.90)
8.93***(2.38)
5.36(3.70)
Black Rep XParty
-23.04**(8.81)
-5.80(10.09)
-14.19(10.45)
-22.25(14.65)
-23.49(12.46)
-18.03(9.94)
-16.50(10.76)
N/A N/A
LatinoRepresentative
12.56*(5.01)
.23(4.59)
-1.04(5.07)
3.45(5.22)
11.57**(4.43)
12.06**(3.57)
11.19**(3.88)
5.44(2.96)
2.25(4.62)
Latino RepX Party
-7.42(11.40)
17.95*(8.60)
28.71**(8.99)
10.31(8.81)
12.19(7.49)
-10.92(6.92)
-5.60(7.66)
-6.65(4.77)
3.52(7.52)
Party Republican-32.94***(1.50)
-67.12**(1.44)
-62.50**(1.50)
-49.31**(1.53)
-67.77**(1.30)
-55.78**(1.07)
-56.76**(1.15)
-54.46**(0.95)
-72.35**(1.48)
Estimates of NAACP and NHLA Scorecard Ratings, 104th through the 108th Congresses
Excluding Descriptive Representation Variables[abbreviated Table]
Independent Variables
104th 105th 106th 107th 108th
NAACP NAACP NHLA NAACP NHLA NAACP NHLA NAACP NHLA
Party and PopulationInteractions
Republican-29.07***(2.43)
66.78**(2.31)
-5.98***(2.45)
-4.17***(2.45)
-6.44***(2.14)
-5.45***(1.70)
-5.53***(1.84)
-4.07***(1.45)
-6.65***(2.26)
Party X Prop. Black
-14.63(12.56)
-22.11(11.85)
-31.74*(12.47)
-29.49*(12.86)
-30.08**(11.20)
-24.87**(9.03)
-28.49**(9.31)
-2.52***(7.68)
-19.00(12.07)
Party X Prop. Latino
4.55(15.68)
19.50(13.45)
4.77(14.92)
-30.90*(15.33)
1.34(13.35)
-7.44(10.84)
-10.59(11.81)
-2.79(9.12)
-1.04(13.88)
Party X Prop. Foreign Born
-44.24*(22.54)
-6.08(20.59)
-1.57(22.65)
38.55(22.43)
-12.15(19.53)
-23.94(16.52)
-14.25(18.14)
-33.46*(14.42)
-35.15(22.20)
Summary of Findingson Black-Latino MCs’ Voting
in Congress on NAACP & NHLA
• Importance of representatives’ political party affiliation (re)affirmed
• Racial background of representative matters (beyond party); is clearest for Blacks, modestly for Latino MCs
• Absence of independent effects of districts’ racial/ethnic composition (though evidence of racial ‘backlash’)
• Little support for ‘class-based’ interpretation (i.e., impact of indicators of income, education, poverty)
• * Some degree of heightened support across minority groups, but not uniform *
Some General Implicationsconsidering mass v. elite analyses:
* Different findings when considering:• cooperation vs conflict is more complicated than usually understood. • elites’ relations (two types of elites) vs mass attitudes• national versus local (‘scope’)
* Latinos’ views, Blacks’ views, Whites’ views of importance, and types of issues
* Race and Representation – findings question the view minority representatives not essential to adequate minority representation
* American multi-ethnic pluralism & democracy Indeed multi-dimensional, more so than typically acknowledged
Impact of institutions, and various actors in different arenas
Whites’ and Latinos’ (Mexicans’) Views of “What it means to be fully American in the eyes of most Americans”
(% saying ‘very important,’ in LNS and CCES)
3.60%12.30%
59.10%70.60%
17.10%37.60%43.90%
83.70%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
English American Born Christian White
Mexican
Whites
Perceptions of ‘Ethnocultural’ Americanism
Mexican Whites
Policy TypologyPolicy TypologyCanon (1999):Canon (1999):
Directly racial Directly racial Partly racial Partly racial Non-racial Non-racial(explicitly) (explicitly) (implicit) (implicit)
RaceRace Class and race Party/Class Class and race Party/Class (and/or..?)(and/or..?)
Also, procedural/opportunity vs outcomes orientationAlso, procedural/opportunity vs outcomes orientation
Bill Sponsorship by Type (Racial, Part Racial, and Non-)by Black, Latino, and White MCs
(103rd Congress – Data from Canon 1999)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Racial Part Racl Non Racl