Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Convergence and Disadvantage in Poverty Trends (1980–2010): What is Driving the Relative Socioeconomic Position of Hispanics and Whites?

  • Published:
Race and Social Problems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The gap between white and Hispanic poverty has remained stable for decades despite dramatic changes in the size and composition of the two groups. The gap, however, conceals crucial differences within the Hispanic population whereby some leverage education and smaller families to stave off poverty while others facing barriers to citizenship and English language acquisition face particularly high rates. In this paper, we use Decennial Census and American Community Survey data to examine poverty rates between Hispanic and non-Hispanic, white heads of household. We find the usual suspects stratify poverty risks: gender, age, employment, education, marital status, family size, and metro area status. In addition, Hispanic ethnicity has become a weaker indicator of poverty. We then decompose trends in poverty gaps between racial and ethnic groups. Between 1980 and 2010, poverty gaps persisted between whites and Hispanics. We find support for a convergence of advantages hypothesis and only partial support (among Hispanic noncitizens and Hispanics with limited English language proficiency) for a rising disadvantages hypothesis. Poverty-reducing gains in educational attainment alongside smaller families kept white–Hispanic poverty gaps from rising. If educational attainment continues to rise and family size drops further, poverty rates could fall, particularly for Hispanics who still have lower education and larger families, on average. Gains toward citizenship and greater English language proficiency would also serve to reduce the Hispanic–white poverty gap.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amuedo-Dorantes, C., & Antman, F. (2016). Can authorization reduce poverty among undocumented immigrants? Evidence from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Economics Letters, 147, 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amuedo-Dorantes, C., Arenas-Arroyo, E., & Sevilla, A. (2016). Immigration enforcement and childhood poverty in the United States. IZA Discussion Paper No. 10030. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2807268.

  • Aponte, R. (1991). Urban Hispanic poverty: Disaggregations and explanations. Social Problems, 38(4), 516–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bean, F. D., Feliciano, C., Lee, J., & Van Hook, J. (2009). The new U.S. immigrants: How do they affect our understanding of the African American experience? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 621(1), 202–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Census Bureau. (2017). How the Census Bureau measures poverty. Suitland: Census Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couch, K., & Daly, M. C. (2002). Black-white wage inequality in the 1990s: A decade of progress. Economic Inquiry, 40(1), 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couch, K., & Fairlie, R. (2010). Last hired, first fired? Black–white unemployment and the business cycle. Demography, 47(1), 227–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, K. M., & Saenz, R. (2008). “No Phone, No Vehicle, No English, No Citizenship”: The Vulnerability of Mexican Immigrants in the United States. In A. Hattery, D. Embrick, & E. Smith (Eds.), Globalization and America: Race, human rights and inequality (pp. 161–180). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairlie, R. (2006). An extension of the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition technique to logit and probit models. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). Retrieved from http://ftp.iza.org/dp1917.pdf.

  • Firebaugh, G., & Farrell, C. R. (2016). Still large, but narrowing: The sizable decline in racial neighborhood inequality in Metropolitan America, 1980–2010. Demography, 53(1), 139–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, G. (2011). Mexican American and immigrant poverty in the United States. The Springer series on demographic methods and population analysis. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iceland, J. (1997). Urban labor markets and individual transitions out of poverty. Demography, 34(3), 429–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iceland, J. (2003). Why poverty remains high: The role of income growth, economic inequality, and changes in family structure, 1949–1999. Demography, 40(3), 499–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iceland, J., & Wilkes, R. (2006). Does socioeconomic status matter? Race, class, and residential segregation. Social Problems, 53(2), 248–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jann, B. (2008). The Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition for linear regression models. The Stata Journal, 8(4), 453–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K. M., Schaefer, A., Lichter, D. T., & Rogers, L. T. (2014). The increasing diversity of America’s youth. Durham, NH: Carsey School of Public Policy. Retrieved from http://scholars.unh.edu/carsey/212.

  • Kim, C. (2010). Decomposing the change in the wage gap between white and black men over time, 1980–2005: An extension of the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition method. Sociological Methods & Research, 38(4), 619–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, U., Karlson, K. B., & Holm, A. (2011). Comparing coefficients of nested nonlinear probability models. Stata Journal, 11(3), 420–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kossoudji, S. A., & Cobb-Clark, D. A. (2002). Coming out of the shadows: Learning about legal status and wages from the legalized population. Journal of Labor Economics, 20(3), 598–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichter, D. T., Parisi, D., & Taquino, M. C. (2012). The geography of exclusion: Race, segregation, and concentrated poverty. Social Problems, 59(3), 364–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez, M. J. (2013). Poverty among Hispanics in the United States. In M. T. Mora & A. Davila (Eds.), The economic status of the hispanic population: Selected essays (pp. 49–64). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massey, D. S., & Eggers, M. L. (1990). The ecology of inequality: Minorities and the concentration of poverty, 1970–1980. American Journal of Sociology, 95(5), 1153–1188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massey, D. S., & Pren, K. A. (2012a). Origins of the new Latino underclass. Race and Social Problems, 4(1), 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massey, D. S., & Pren, K. A. (2012b). Unintended consequences of US immigration policy: Explaining the post-1965 surge from Latin America. Population and Development Review, 38(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattingly, M. J., & Pedroza, J. M. (2015). “Why isn’t the hispanic poverty rate rising?” Pathways: A Magazine on Poverty, Inequality, and Social Policy (Spring). Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality.

  • Orrenius, P., & Zavodny, M. (2013). Trends in poverty and inequality among Hispanics. In R. S. Rycroft (Ed.), The economics of inequality, poverty, and discrimination (pp. 217–235). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passel, J. S., & Cohn, D. (2009). A portrait of unauthorized immigrants in the United States. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/107.pdf.

  • Ruggles, S., Genadek, K., Goeken, R., Grover, J., & Sobek, M. (2015). Integrated public use microdata series: Version 6.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugh, J. S., & Massey, D. S. (2014). Segregation in post-civil rights America. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 11(2), 205–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siordia, C., & Leyser-Whalen, O. (2014). Mexican Americans’ lucky few and baby boom cohorts: How is relative cohort size related to the likelihood of being out-of-poverty? Sociological Focus, 47(3), 163–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, D. H., & Ziegert, A. L. (2008). Hispanic immigrant poverty: Does ethnic origin matter? Population Research and Policy Review, 27(6), 667–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P., Lopez, M. H., Passel, J. S., & Motel, S. (2011). Unauthorized immigrants: Length of residency, patterns of parenthood. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tienda, M., & Lii, D.-T. (1987). Minority concentration and earnings inequality: Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians compared. American Journal of Sociology, 93(1), 141–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tran, V. C., & Valdez, N. M. (2017). Second-generation decline or advantage? Latino assimilation in the aftermath of the great recession. International Migration Review, 51(1), 155–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Hook, J., Brown, S. L., & Kwenda, M. N. (2004). A decomposition of trends in poverty among children of immigrants. Demography, 41(4), 649–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldinger, R. D. (1999). Still the promised city? African-Americans and new immigrants in postindustrial New York. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, W. J. (2015). New perspectives on the declining significance of race: A rejoinder. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(8), 1278–1284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, J. R. (2012). Underemployment in urban and rural America, 2005-2012. Durham, NH: Carsey Institute, University of New Hampshire. Retrieved from http://scholars.unh.edu/carsey/179.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality, Stanford University, Building 370, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA

    Marybeth J. Mattingly

  2. Carsey School of Public Policy, University of New Hampshire, Huddleston Hall, 73 Main Street, Durham, NH, 03820, USA

    Marybeth J. Mattingly

  3. Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality and Department of Sociology, Stanford University, Building 120, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA

    Juan M. Pedroza

Authors
  1. Marybeth J. Mattingly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juan M. Pedroza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marybeth J. Mattingly.

Appendix : Blinder-Oaxaca Decomposition Models

Appendix : Blinder-Oaxaca Decomposition Models

 

Hispanic–white poverty

 

1980

1990

2000

2010

Gap

12.4%

13.5%

12.7%

11.6%

 

Change in Hispanic poverty

Variable

1980

1990

2000

2010

Speaks English not well or not at all

0.00945

0.00889

0.01900

0.02909

Foreign-born, naturalized citizen

− 0.00192

− 0.00173

0.00086

0.00300

Foreign-born, noncitizen

0.00773

0.00901

0.00984

0.00655

Professional occupation

0.00382

0.00363

0.00290

0.00334

Working in a typical “immigrant job”

− 0.00159

n.s.

0.00032

0.00288

Number of adult workers in family

− 0.00533

− 0.00983

− 0.00507

− 0.01326

Head employed < 50 weeks last year

0.00442

0.00602

0.00671

− 0.00673

Female

0.00035

0.00029*

0.00009

0.00036

25–34 years old

0.00224

0.00404

0.00299

0.00332

35–44 years old

0.00066

0.00108

0.00074

0.00073

45–54 years old

0.00033

0.00025

− 0.00039

− 0.00019

65–74 years old

0.00454

0.00620

0.00606

0.00608

75 + years old

0.00210

0.00562

0.01007

0.01031

Less than high school

0.01596

0.02405

0.02676

0.02909

High school, 12 years

− 0.00061

− 0.00083

− 0.00086

− 0.00056

College, 4 + years

0.00076

0.00186

0.00265

0.00392

Married, spouse absent

0.00185

0.00165

0.00188

0.00291

Separated

0.00533

0.00484

0.00398

0.00514

Divorced

0.00061

n.s

− 0.00141

− 0.00258

Widowed

− 0.00349

− 0.00358

− 0.00248

− 0.00258

Never married, single

0.00058

0.00132

0.00171

0.00502

No children under age 18

0.00045

0.00334

0.00295

0.00539

Two children under age 18

0.00116

0.00215

0.00215

0.00233

Three children under age 18

0.01030

0.01193

0.00965

0.00873

Presence of a child under age 5

0.00276

0.00205

0.00175

0.00171

Not in metro area

− 0.00130

− 0.00400

− 0.00114

− 0.00115

Metro area, central city

− 0.00588

− 0.00318

− 0.00195

− 0.00140

Other metro

0.00169

0.00052

0.00082

0.00029

Metro status not identifiable

0.00052

0.00069

− 0.00055

− 0.00063

Totala

5.7%

7.6%

10.0%

10.1%

Proportion of gap explained

46%

56%

79%

87%

  1. P values are < 0.01 (two-tailed tests) unless otherwise noted: * p < 0.05 or “n.s.” (p > 0.05). Authors’ calculations of IPUMS data from Ruggles et al. (2015). Analysis sample of heads of household age 25 years and older (excludes group quarters)
  2. aTotal includes only coefficients with p value < 0.01

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mattingly, M.J., Pedroza, J.M. Convergence and Disadvantage in Poverty Trends (1980–2010): What is Driving the Relative Socioeconomic Position of Hispanics and Whites?. Race Soc Probl 10, 53–66 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-017-9221-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-017-9221-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation