Abstract
With the continuous inflow of new immigrants, political participation of Latinos and Asian Americans has become increasingly important for understanding the American electoral politics. A few previous studies examining how political participation of Latinos and Asian Americans is contextually determined reported mixed empirical findings, and this paper re-examines the issue by considering how different features of racial contexts interact to influence the voting turnout of individual Latinos and Asian Americans. Theoretically, we present a model of turnout where a rational individual is motivated to participate, not only by individualistic benefits accrued to him- or herself, but also by perceptions of group-level benefits—concerns regarding the welfare of other members of the racial group. We argue that racial contexts provide distinctive (dis-)incentives to participate, by influencing their perception of participatory benefits at the group level. Empirically, we find that the size of the group exerts a significant effect on turnout decisions of Latino and Asian American individuals, and, particularly for Latinos, its effect interacts with the economic status of the group and the overall racial heterogeneity in the county of residence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
On the last point, Gay (2001) reports a contrasting finding, showing that black elected officials rarely increase political engagement among blacks while they do negatively affect whites’ political involvement. However, Gay’s finding is based on the ecological inference from aggregate data, and thus may not be directly comparable to Bobo and Gilliam’s individual-level analysis. In addition, recent analysis by Banducci et al. (2004) and Barreto et al. (2004) generalizes the empowerment argument, by showing that descriptive representation secured through the creation of majority-minority districts increases political efficacy and participation of Maori voters in New Zealand and Latino voters in the United States, respectively.
At the same time, however, Browning et al. (1986) also finds that electoral mobilization of Latinos is greater where Latinos have previously experienced higher levels of non-electoral protest activities, which is a strong function of the absolute, rather than relative, size of the group.
On the other hand, Oliver (2001) finds that Latinos’ engagements in other types of civic activities, especially instrumental activities directed toward a particular goal such as contacting local officials or attending community board meetings, increase in non-white places than in predominantly white places, and interprets this as reflecting the combination of greater social problems and fewer public resources in racially mixed places.
In fact, the concept of relational goods plays an essential role in this paper as well, and the relationship between relational goods and the group size is explicitly derived from simple model of participation developed in the next section.
In fact, even in the tradition of rational-choice theory, the idea that people have two sets of preferences, one of which is “altruistic” preferences containing the individual’s perception of the utilities of others, is not new from its early generations (e.g., Harsany 1969, 1977; Margolis 1981) to more recent game-theoretic models (Coate and Conlin 2004; Feddersen and Sandroni 2006; Jankowski 2007. For review, see Feddersen 2004).
One should note that perceiving group-level benefits is different from the sense of duty to help others which does not depend on election outcomes. In fact, both sets of benefits here are of instrumental nature as people who care about the welfare of others will vote only if they think one of the alternatives is superior (Fowler 2006, p. 675).
For instance, consider the following thought experiment. Suppose that there are N = N 1 + N 2 +··· + N G number of voters. As the probability of a vote being decisive is inversely proportional to N (Gelman et al. 1998), the utility of voting for a typical member i in group g can be written as \(U_{i0}=P\alpha\bar{B_{g}}N_{g}=(K/N)\alpha\bar{B_{g}}N_{g}\) for some constant K which represents the competitiveness of the election. Now, add s number of new voters to group g, holding everything else constant. In this situation, the new utility is given by \( U_{i1}=\{K/(N+s)\}\alpha\bar{B_{g}}(N_{g}+s)\). Then,
$$ U_{i1}-U_{10}=K\alpha\bar{B_{g}}\left(\frac{N_{g}+s}{N+s}-\frac{N_{g}}{N}\right) =K\alpha\bar{B_{g}}\left(\frac{s(N-N_{g})}{N(N+s)}\right)> 0 $$Therefore, an increase in the group size provides a greater incentive for members to participate by increasing group-level benefits large enough to offset a decrease in the probability that one’s vote matters. In fact, this consideration should be particularly salient among Latinos and Asian: as many Latinos and Asian Americans are non-citizens and thus ineligible to vote, an increase in the number of Latinos and Asian Americans affects P to a lesser extent than a similar increase in the number of whites or African Americans does.
The median household income is one of the most direct measures of the aggregate socio-economic status, along with the educational attainment. However, the large proportion of immigrants among Latinos and Asian Americans makes the educational attainment potentially improper measure of the socio-economic status of their groups, as they are primarily educated outside of the U.S. and thus their educational attainment does not necessarily correspond to the extent to which they have advanced socio-economically in the U.S. society.
In this paper, we take county as a measure of context. Obviously, the size of a county varies across different areas, and county as a measure of context makes more sense in one place than in another. In fact, this is an inevitable problem in any contextual analysis, since every individual may perceive a context differently. Nevertheless, we believe that taking counties as a unit of analysis is a reasonable compromise given this paper’s national scope, especially considering data availability, without a strong theoretical reason that indicates otherwise.
The CPS 2000 data classifies respondent’s race into four categories: White; Black; American Indian, Aleut, Eskimo; and Asian or Pacific Islander. Then it asks respondents whether they are of Hispanic origin or decent. Respondents who answered the second question affirmatively are coded as Latino regardless of how they responded to the first race question. Asian Americans are those respondents who indicated themselves as Asian or Pacific Islander and answered the second question negatively.
Nevertheless, it is still questionable how representative these counties are. In fact, because of confidentiality restrictions, the CPS intentionally identifies only more populous, and thus more racially diverse, counties: for instance, the average population size of the counties identified in the CPS 2000 is about 9.5 times larger than that of unidentified counties; the counties identified in the CPS 2000 on average contain 97,607 Latinos and 31,883 Asian Americans, while unidentified counties contain only the average of 4,808 Latinos and 1,077 Asian Americans. Obviously, this skewed distribution of counties in the CPS data may bias the results reported in this paper to some extent, especially in a way that makes individual residents more responsive to racial contexts. If this is indeed the case, it is possible that the actual effect of racial contexts on individual participation can be smaller than what is reported in this paper. Therefore, the findings of this paper should be taken with caution and validated further with additional research. Nevertheless, the possible bias should be less significant in the CPS data with its broader geographic coverage than in other datasets that explicitly draw the sample from a limited number of places where a very large number of Latinos and Asian Americans are concentrated.
In fact, while the turnout rates calculated from the ANES 2000 is 76%, the turnout rates in the CPS 2000 is 67% and therefore much closer to the actual turnout rates.
For ease of interpretation, in the estimation, all of the group-level variables are centered around 0 by subtracting their respective means.
Among individual-level variables, Length of Residence represent how long a respondent has lived at the same address. Other variable in CPS data that can be related to voting turnout is the union membership. However, the question on union membership is asked only to a quarter of respondents. Therefore, including this variable in the model enormously decreases the sample size for empirical analysis, and thus we exclude it.
In addition, very high correlation between Group Size and Heterogeneity among Asian Americans can be another factor that makes it difficult to find significant interaction effects between the two: the correlation between Group Size and Heterogeneity is 0.79 among Asian Americans, compared to 0.55 among Latinos. On the other hand, the correlations between Group Size and Group Income are negligible for both Latinos and Asian Americans.
According to the Census 2000, the median household income of Latinos is $33,676, while that of Asian Americans is as high as $51,908. The median household income of Asian Americans is even higher than that of non-Hispanic whites, which is $45,367.
Specifically, our hypothetical Latino is 38-year-old married woman of Mexican origin, who is a native-born citizen. She is a high-school graduate, employed with family income of $30,000-$35,000, and owns a house where she has lived at least 5 years. Our hypothetical Asian American is 43-year-old married woman of Chinese origin, who is a naturalized citizen. She is employed with family income of $50,000–$60,000, has some college education (but no degree), and owns a house where she has lived at least 5 years.
We could not do a similar re-analysis with respect to Asian Americans, as Asian Americans include multiple language groups.
Although the number of counties covered by the VRA is less than 30% of all the counties considered here, more than three quarters of Latinos in the sample reside in those counties.
References
Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2000). Participation in heterogeneous communities. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 847–904.
Banducci, S. A., Donovan T., & Karp, J. A. (2004). Minority representation, empowerment, and participation. Journal of Politics, 66(2), 534–556.
Barreto, M. A., Segura, G. M., & Woods, N. D. (2004). The mobilizing effect of majority–minority districts on Latino turnout. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 65–75.
Barreto, M. A., & Woods, N. (2005). Latino voting behavior in an anti-Latino political context: The case of Los Angeles County. In G. Segura & S. Bowler (Eds.), Diversity in democracy: Minority representation in the United States. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
Bass, L., & Lynne, C. (2001). Impacting the political landscape: Who registers and votes among naturalized Americans? Political Behavior, 23(2), 103–130.
Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld P., & McPhee, W. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Blais, A. (2000). To vote or not to vote?: The merits and limits of rational choice theory. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press.
Blalock, H. (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group relations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Bledsoe, T., Welch, S., Sigelman, L., & Combs, M. (1995). Residential context and racial solidarity among African Americans. American Journal of Political Science, 39(2), 434–458.
Bobo, L., & Gilliam, F. (1990). Race, sociopolitical participation, and black empowerment. American Political Science Review, 84(2), 377–393.
Bobo L., & Hutchings, V. (1996). Perceptions of racial group competition: Extending Blumer’s theory of group position to a multiracial social context. American Sociological Review, 61(6), 951–972.
Branton, R. P., & Jones, B. S. (2005). Reexamining racial attitudes: The conditional relationship between diversity and socioeconomic environment. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 359–372.
Browning, R., Marshall, D. R., & Tabb D. (1986). Protest is not enough: The struggle of blacks and Hispanics for equality in urban politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Burden, B. C. (2000). Voter turnout and the national election studies. Political Analysis, 8(4), 389–398.
Cho, W. T. (1999). Naturalization, socialization, participation: Immigrants and (Non-)voting. Journal of Politics 61(4), 1140–1155
Cho, W. K. T., Gimpel, J. G., & Dyck, J. J. (2006). Residential concentration, political socialization, and voter turnout. Journal of Politics, 68(1), 156–167.
Coate, S., & Conlin, M. (2004). A group rule-utilitarian approach to voter turnout: Theory and evidence. American Economic Review, 94(5), 1476–1504.
Costa, D. L., & Kahn, M. E. (2003). Civic engagement and community heterogeneity: An economist’s perspective. Perspectives on Politics, 1(1), 103–111.
Dawson, M. (1994). Behind the mule: Race and class in African-American politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
de la Garza, R. O. (2004). Latino politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 91–123.
DeSipio, L. (1996). Counting on the Latino vote: Latinos as a new electorate. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
Diaz, W. (1996). Latino participation in America: Associational and political roles. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18(2), 154–174.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.
Edlin, A., Gelman, A., & Kaplan, N. (2007). Voting as a rational choice: Why and how people vote to improve the well-being of others. Rationality and Society, 19(3), 293–314.
Espiritu, Y. L. (1992). Asian American panethnicity: Bridging institutions and identities. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Espiritu, Y. L., & Omi, M. (2000). Who are you calling Asian?: Shifting identity claims, racial classification, and the census. In P. Ong (Ed.), The State of Asian Pacific America: Transforming race relations, a public policy report (Vol. IV). Los Angeles: LEAP Asian Pacific American Public Policy Institute and the UCLA Asian American Studies Center.
Feddersen, T. (2004). Rational choice theory and the paradox of not voting. Journal of Economic Perspectives 18(1): 99–112.
Feddersen, T., & Sandroni, A. (2006). A theory of participation in elections. American Economic Review, 96(4), 1271–1282.
Filer J., Kenny L., & Morton, R. (1993). Redistribution, income, and voting. American Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 63–87.
Fowler, J. (2006). Altruism and turnout. Journal of Politics 68(3): 674–683.
Funk, C. (2000). The dual influence of self-interest and societal interest in public opinion. Political Research Quarterly, 53(1), 37–62.
Gay, C. (2001). The effect of black congressional representation on political participation. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 589–602.
Gay, C. (2004). Putting race in context: Identifying the environmental determinants of black racial attitudes. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 547–562.
Gay, C. (2006). Seeing difference: The effect of economic disparity on black attitudes toward Latinos. American Journal of Political Science, 50(4), 982–997.
Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2006). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gelman, A., King, G., & Boscardin, J. (1998). Estimating the probability of events that have never occurred: When is your vote decisive? Journal of the American Statistical Association, 93(441), 1–9.
Giles, M., & Buckner, M. (1993). David duke and black threat: An old hypothesis revisited. Journal of Politics, 55(3), 702–713.
Giles, M., & Evans, A. (1985). External threat, perceived threat, and group identity. Social Science Quarterly, 66(1), 50–66.
Giles, M., & Hertz, K. (1994). Racial threat and party identification. American Political Science Review, 88(2), 317–326.
Gimpel, J. G., Dyck, J. J., & Shaw, D. R. (2004). Registrants, voters, and turnout variability across neighborhoods. Political Behavior, 26(4), 343–375.
Grossman G., & Helpman, E. (2001). Special interest politics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Harsanyi, J. (1969). Rational-choice models of political behavior vs. functionalist and conformist theories. World Politics, 21(4), 513–538.
Harsanyi, J. (1977). Morality and the theory of rational behavior. Social Research, 44(4), 623–656.
Hritzuk, N., & Park, D. (2000). The question of Latino participation: From an SES to a social structural explanation. Social Science Quarterly, 81(1), 151–166.
Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jankowski, R. (2007). Altruism and the decision to vote. Rationality and Society, 19(1), 5–34.
Jones-Correa, M. (1998). Between two nations: The political predicament of Latinos in New York city. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Jones-Correa, M. (2001). Institutional and contextual factors in immigrant naturalization and voting. Citizenship Studies, 5(1), 41–56.
Jones-Correa, M., & Leal, D. (1996). Becoming Hispanic: Secondary panethnic identification among Latin American-origin populations in the United States. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18(2), 214–254.
Jones-Correa, M., & Leal, D. (2001). Political participation: Does religion matter? Political Research Quarterly, 54(4), 751–770.
Key, V. O. (1949). Southern politics in state and nation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Kim, C. (1999). The racial triangulation of Asian Americans. Politics & Society, 27(1), 105–138.
Kinder, D. R., & Sanders, L. M. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Knack, S. (1992). Civic norms, social sanctions, and voter turnout. Rationality and Society, 4(2), 133–156.
Lapp, M. (1999). Incorporating groups into rational choice explanations of turnout: An empirical test. Public Choice, 98(12), 171–85.
Lau, R. (1989). Individual and contextual influences on group identification. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52(3), 220–231.
Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). People’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce.
Leighley, J. (1990). Social interaction and contextual influences on political participation. American Politics Quarterly, 18(4), 191–209.
Leighley, J. (1995). Attitudes, opportunities and incentives: A field essay on political participation. Political Research Quarterly, 48(1), 181–209.
Leighley, J. (2001). Strength in numbers?: The political mobilization of racial and ethnic minorities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Leighley, J. (2005). Race, ethnicity, and electoral mobilization: Where’s the party? In C. Wolbrecht & R. Hero (Eds.), The politics of democratic inclusion. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Leighley, J., & Vedlitz, A. (1999). Race, ethnicity, and political participation: Competing models and contrasting explanations. Journal of Politics, 61(4), 1092–1114.
Lien P.-t. (1994). Ethnicity and political participation: A comparison between Asian and Mexican Americans. Political Behavior, 16(2), 237–264.
Lien, P.-t. (2001). The making of Asian American through political participation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Lien, P.-t. (2004). Asian Americans and voting participation: Comparing racial and ethnic differences in recent U.S. elections. International Migration Review, 38(2), 493–517.
Lien, P.-t., Conway, M., & Wong, J. (2003). The contours and sources of ethnic identity choices among Asian americans. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 461–481.
Lien, P.-t., Conway, M., & Wong J. (2004). The politics of Asian Americans: Diversity and community. New York: Routledge.
Lopez, D., & Espiritu, Y. L. (1990). Panethnicity in the United States: A theoretical framework. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 13(2), 198–224.
Margolis, H. (1980). A new model of rational choice. Ethics, 91(2), 256–279.
McAdam, D. (1982). Political process and the development of black insurgency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Michelson, M. (2003). Getting out the Latino vote: How door-to-door canvassing influences voter turnout in rural Central California. Political Behavior, 25(3), 247–263.
Miller, A., Gurin, P., Gurin, G., & Malanchuk, O. (1981). Group consciousness and political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 25(3), 494–511.
Mollenkopf, J. (1999). Urban political conflicts and alliances: New York and Los Angeles compared. In C. Hirschman, P. Kasinitz, & J. DeWind (Eds.), The handbook of international migration: The American experience. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Morton, R. (1991). Groups in rational turnout models. American Journal of Political Science, 35(3), 758–776.
Mutz, D., & Mondak, J. (1997). Dimensions of sociotropic behavior: Group-based judgments of fairness and well-being. American Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 284–308.
Oliver, E. (2001). Democracy in Suburbia. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Oliver, E., & Mendelberg, T. (2000). Reconsidering the environmental determinants of whites’ racial attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 44(3), 574–589.
Oliver, E., & Wong, J. (2003). Intergroup prejudice in multiethnic settings. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 567–582.
Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1994). Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. New York: Routledge.
Pantoja, A., Ramirez, R., & Segura, G. (2001). Citizens by choice, voters by necessity: Patterns in political mobilization by naturalized Latinos. Political Research Quarterly, 54(4), 729–750.
Pantoja, A., & Segura, G. (2003). Fear and loathing in California: Contextual threat and political sophistication among Latino voters. Political Behavior, 25(3), 265–286.
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Rae, D. (1967). The analysis of political cleavages. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ramakrishnan, K. (2005). Democracy in immigrant America: Changing demographics and political participation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Riker, W., & Ordeshook, P. (1968). A calculus of voting. American Political Science Review, 62(1), 25–42.
Rosenstone, S., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.
Schildkraut, D. J. (2005). The rise and fall of political engagement among Latinos: The Role of Identity and Perceptions of Discrimination. Political Behavior, 27(3), 285–312.
Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. (1995). Participation’s not a paradox: The view from American activists. British Journal of Political Science, 25(1), 1–36.
Schram, A. (1991). Voter behavior in economic perspective. New York : Springer.
Schram, A., & Sonnemans, J. (1996). Why people vote: Experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17(4), 417–442.
Shachar, R., & Nalebuff, B. (1999). Follow the leader: Theory and evidence on political participation. American Economic Review, 89(3), 525–547.
Shaw, D., de la Garza, R., & Lee, J. (2000). Examining Latino turnout in 1996: A three-state, validated survey approach. American Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 338–346.
Shingles, R. (1981). Black consciousness and political participation. American Political Science Review, 75(1), 76–91.
Saito, L. T. (1998). Race and politics: Asian Americans, Latinos, and whites in a Los Angeles suburb. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Stokes, A. (2003). Latino group consciousness and political participation. American Politics Research, 31(4), 361–378.
Tam, W. (1995). Asians—A monolithic voting bloc? Political Behavior, 17(2), 223–249.
Tate, K. (1993). From protest to politics: The new black voters in American elections. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Tuan, M. (1998). Forever foreigners or honorary whites? The Asian ethnic experience today. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Uhlaner, C. (1986). Political participation, rational actors, and rationality: A new approach. Political Psychology, 7(3), 551–573.
Uhlaner, C. (1989a). Rational turnout: The neglected role of groups. American Journal of Political Science, 33(2), 390–422.
Uhlaner, C. (1989b). ’Relational goods’ and participation: Incorporating sociability into a theory of rational action. Public Choice, 62(3), 253–285.
Uhlaner, C., Cain, B. & Kiewiet, R. (1989). Political participation of ethnic minorities in the 1980s. Political Behavior, 11(3), 195–231.
Verba, S., & Nie, N. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Verba, S., Nie, N., & Kim, J.-o. (1978). Participation and political equality: A seven-nation comparison. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H., & Nie, N. (1993). Race, ethnicity, and political resources: Participation in the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 23(4), 453–497.
Welch, S., Sigelman, L., Bledsoe, T., & Combs, M. (2001). Race and place: Race relations in an American city. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wolfinger, R., & Rosenstone, S. (1980). Who votes? New Haven: Yale University Press.
Wong, J. (2006). Democracy’s promise: immigrant & American civic institutions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Wong, J., Lien, P.-t., & Conway, M. (2005). Group-based resources and political participation among Asian Americans. American Politics Research, 33(4), 545–576.
Acknowledgements
This paper benefits from helpful comments by Rodolfo de la Garza, Andrew Gelman, Robert Shapiro, and Gregory Wawro.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL., April 12–15, 2007.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jang, SJ. Get Out on Behalf of Your Group: Electoral Participation of Latinos and Asian Americans. Polit Behav 31, 511–535 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-009-9086-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-009-9086-0