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