Ethnic Organizations and the Welfare State: The Impact of Social Welfare Programs on the Formation of Indochinese Refugee Associations

Sociological Forum, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1997

Ethnic Organizations and the Welfare State:The Impact of Social Welfare Programs on theFormation of Indochinese Refugee Associations

Jeremy Hein1

The expansion of the welfare state during the 20th century has altered theconditions shaping the formation of ethnic organizations. Drawing uponresearch in the divergent fields of social policy, immigrant communities, andsocial movements, this article argues that social welfare programs promote orsuppress ethnic organizations depending on how they affect an ethniccommunity's institutional completeness. This welfare state channeling theoryis contrasted with ethnic competition and resource mobilization explanationsfor the formation of ethnic organizations. An analysis of 800 Indochineserefugee associations finds that public assistance has no effect on the prevalenceof these organizations, but that privatization of federal social serviceexpenditures does, thus partially supporting the welfare state channeling theory.

INTRODUCTION

Robert E. Park was the first sociologist to recognize that ethnic or-ganizations are indicators of immigrant adaptation and ethnicity. Writingshortly after the peak years of European migration, Park (1920/1967: 134-35) claimed that immigrants formed ethnic organizations as part of theiradjustment to a modern society:

In the little, isolated peasant villages from which they came, life was, and is still,relatively fixed and settled. Under such conditions custom and tradition providedfor all the exigencies of daily life. Conduct was based on face to face relationships,that is to say, speech and neighborly gossip. In America, where there are vast

1To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Sociology, University ofWisconsin, Eau Claire, Wisconsin 54702-4004.

KEY WORDS: ethnic organizations; welfare state; Indochinese refugees.

0884-8971/97/0600-0279$12.5<M> C 1997 Plenum Publishing Corporation

279

distances and no traditions, where the population is mobile and everything is inprocess, the peasant discards his habits and acquires "ideas." In America, aboveall, the immigrant organizes. These organizations are the embodiment of his newneeds and his new ideas. He becomes a socialist or a nationalist, or a member ofa fraternal organization, and reads a paper, because practically every immigrantorganization publishes some sort of paper.

Park attributed the rise of ethnic organizations in the early 1900s tothe influence of urbanization and industrialization, an insight confirmed bycontemporary research (Yancey et al., 1976). Others studying this periodhave identified ethnic competition over resources as a cause of ethnic or-ganizations (Olzak and West, 1991; Olzak, 1992). Yet historical develop-ments since the 1930s, particularly state expansion, have changed thecontext in which ethnic groups create organizations. The American statehas always influenced ethnicity (Enloe, 1981), but the fiscal and politicalpower of the modern state makes it especially important (Brass, 1985;Nagel and Olzak, 1982). According to See and Wilson (1988:234): "Becauseof its explicit concern with social cohesion, the state is a crucial determinantof ethnic boundaries and rivalries, and of resources and interests."

This article analyzes the impact of one dimension of the modernstate—its social welfare function—on ethnic organizations. It focuses onthe more than 1 million Indochinese refugees who have migrated to theUnited States since 1975 and their prolific formation of ethnic organiza-tions: 800 by 1984 (Khoa and Bui, 1985) and 1200 by 1991 (Abhay, 1991).Specifically, it analyzes the wide variation in the prevalence of Indochineseorganizations among the states. After considering ethnic competition andresource mobilization explanations of ethnic organization formation, the pa-per develops a welfare state channeling theory from the literature on socialpolicy, immigrant communities, and social movements. Some welfare statepolicies, such as public assistance, reduce the institutional completeness ofethnic communities, thus suppressing ethnic organizations. But policies thatprivatize the welfare state can promote institutional completeness by fund-ing nonprofit organizations in ethnic communities. Findings from an analy-sis of 800 Indochinese organizations partially support this theory.

THE WELFARE STATE, ETHNIC ORGANIZATIONS, ANDINDOCHINESE REFUGEES

Providing social welfare is one of the modern functions of the nationalstate (Skocpol and Amenta, 1986). To create social welfare systems, statesbuilt bureaucracies, developed taxation and finance policies, and expandedthe meaning of citizenship. The resulting public programs sought to meet

280 Hein

some human needs previously under the purview of the family and privateorganizations.

The rise of the American welfare state initially hurt organizations inethnic communities that provided death benefits and other forms of aid.The Social Security Act of 1935, in particular, shifted many social welfarefunctions from ethnic organizations to the federal government (Magill,1985). For example, to be competitive after the nationalization of socialsecurity Polish American organizations selling life insurance emphasizedtheir professional qualities over their ethnicity (Renkiewicz, 1980).

Recent developments, however, have provided opportunities for someethnic organizations to benefit from the welfare state. In 1959 U.S. tax lawredefined charitable activity to include promoting social welfare, thus ex-panding the number of nonprofit organizations eligible for tax-exemptstatus (McCarthy et al., 1991). During the 1960s and early 1970s, federalpolicy privatized portions of the welfare state by making direct grants tononprofits and by allowing states to use public funds to purchase servicesfrom them (Gr0nbjerg, 1982; Kramer, 1981). By 1980 nonprofits receivedone half of the federal government's $7.7 billion expenditure on social serv-ices (Salamon, 1987). Ethnic organizations are among the beneficiaries ofwelfare state privatization (Jenkins, 1988), and programs for refugees area case in point.

The Refugee Act of 1980 created the Office of Refugee Resettlement(ORR) in the Department of Health and Human Services (Hein, 1993).The ORR reimburses states for the costs of refugees' medical care andpublic assistance, but also funds refugee social services. Between 1980 and1989 the ORR's social service expenditures totaled more than $650 million.States use these social service funds to purchase services from governmentorganizations (typically schools) and nonprofit organizations (includingrefugee organizations, although usually American voluntary agencies). Fed-eral funds also circulate among these public and nonprofit organizationsthrough the process of subcontracting. In 1982 the ORR even implementeda matching-grant policy to encourage states to make greater use of organi-zations operated by refugees. Smith and Lipsky (1993:222) summarize thesedevelopments:

Federal funds were established to help Southeast Asian refugees integrate intoAmerican communities and to ameliorate the potential welfare burden to the states.However, the existing Cambodian, Hmong, and Vietnamese organizations had tobe sought out and nurtured for several years to help them build the capacity towork effectively with significant numbers of newcomers.

Although often subsidized by the state, self-help organizations per-form an essential role in the resettlement and adjustment of Indochineserefugees because these refugees were not received by established ethnic

Ethnic Organizations 281

communities during the mass migration between 1975 and 1983. As a result,formal organizations have a particularly strong function in the community.A case study of a Vietnamese association in San Francisco described itsactivities as central to the ethnic community and relations with natives:

Refugee Center sponsored a Democratic club, an elderly association, anorganization of boat people, a small business development program and loan fund,and a Vietnamese language class for refugee children. In addition, Refugee Centercarried out several activities to demonstrate that Vietnamese refugees werecontributing members of society, not just recipients of government aid. Its benefitsfor African refugees and Amerasian refugee children were attended by refugees,prominent citizens, and a number of American political figures. (Gold, 1992:154)

An important function of refugee organizations is providing a basefor community leaders (Abhay, 1991). The first Indochinese leadership con-ference met in Washington, DC, in 1986, and 75% of the approximately150 leaders attending held positions in refugee organizations. The otherswere employed in schools, public social welfare programs, and Americanvoluntary agencies that assist refugees (Indochina Resource Action Center[IRAC], 1986). While refugee organizations do not represent Indochinesecommunities, they nonetheless perform a range of functions vital for thecommunity.

The Indochinese population is not a single ethnic group because itcomprises five distinct groups: Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Hmong,and ethnic Chinese. Yet the groups in this population share a number ofimportant characteristics: adjacent countries of origin, French colonization,U.S. military intervention, timing of arrival in the United States, negativepublic response to their arrival, geographic concentration within the UnitedStates, and a unique status in the social welfare system making them eligiblefor resettlement assistance (Hein, 1993). These commonalties hold constantsome of the factors likely to influence the formation of ethnic organizations.Thus, like the European immigrant newspapers analyzed by Olzak and West(1991:458), Indochinese organizations "draw on particular cultural identi-ties and clienteles and often serve as central communications links in localand national ethnic networks."

EXPLAINING THE FORMATION OF ETHNIC ORGANIZATIONS

Ethnic organizations like those created by Indochinese refugees areof sociological interest because they are indicators of ethnic boundaries(Olzak and West, 1991; Olzak, 1992). Contemporary perspectives on eth-nicity emphasize that ethnic identity is constantly shaped and reshaped asgroups interact with each other (Nagel, 1994). In one of the first presen-

282 Hein

tations of this theory, Barth (1969:15) argued that an ethnic group is main-tained "not only by a once-and-for-all recruitment but by continual expres-sion and validation," as well as "by ways of signaling membership andexclusion." Ethnic organizations are among the most visible ways in whichethnic groups give form to their identity.

Olzak's (1992; Olzak and West, 1991) analysis of European immigrantnewspapers is the most thorough empirical test of the process by whichethnic groups create organizations. Using newspapers as a measure of anethnic group's organizational capacity, Olzak found that attacks on the im-migrants spurred the founding of their newspapers. This finding supportedethnic competition theory rather than resource mobilization theory, anolder explanation for collective action. Conflict, not resources, is often aprecondition for group mobilization. According to Olzak (1992:182): "eth-nic conflict intensifies ethnic solidarity, which in turn encourages foundingsof ethnic organizations."

In contrast to ethnic competition theory, resource mobilization theoryposits that collective action is not dependent on the level of oppressionexperienced by a group, which is often fairly constant (Jenkins, 1983;McAdam et al., 1988). Instead, collective action is determined by a group'sability to amass the resources required to create formal organizations. Fi-nances are only the most obvious resource that promotes the formation oforganizations. Demographic changes, such as migration and urbanization,can increase the availability of resources by concentrating a population andproviding it with greater access to resource producing activities such as highwage jobs (McAdam, 1982; Morris, 1984).

An important finding from research using resource mobilization the-ory is that external funding can channel a group's collective action (Barkan,1986; Haines, 1984; Jenkins and Eckert, 1986). For example, during thecivil rights era white philanthropies supported moderate, national black or-ganizations over radical, local ones, thus promoting professionalizatipn overprotest. The state also can have a channeling effect on social movements.The state's expansion of the criteria for obtaining nonprofit status encour-aged disaffected groups to form social service organizations as a means ofaddressing their problems (McCarthy et al., 1991).

Building upon these findings, the influence of social policy on ethnicorganizations can be conceptualized as welfare state channeling. By pro-viding resources such as public assistance to families defined as poor andgrants to organizations meeting the criteria of nonprofit social service, thewelfare state channels an ethnic community's goals and the organizationalmeans for attaining them. Yet resource mobilization theory falls short ofproviding a complete conceptualization of welfare state channeling in thecase of ethnic organizations. The theory has little to say about immigrants


and ethnicity because it focuses on "rational actions oriented towardsclearly defined, fixed goals with centralized organizational control over re-sources and clearly demarcated outcomes that can be evaluated in termsof tangible gains" (Jenkins, 1983:529). Ethnic communities, however, can-not be seen "simply [as] a type of interest group seeking resources in andfrom the modern state [because] ethnic groups are centrally concerned withcultural matters, symbols, and values and with issues of self-identification"(Brass, 1985:10-11). Insights from the literature on ethnic communities andimmigrant adaptation are required to fully theorize the concept of welfarestate channeling.

According to Breton (1964), ethnic communities inherently seek tomeet their own needs through ethnic institutions. This goal of institutionalcompleteness "would be at its extreme whenever the ethnic communitycould perform all the services required by its members. Members wouldnever have to make use of native institutions for the satisfaction of any oftheir needs, such as education, work, food and clothing, medical care, orsocial assistance" (Breton, 1964:194).

More recent theories of immigrant adaptation have identified self-employment and entrepreneurship as means by which ethnic communitiesattain a degree of self-sufficiency from the larger society (Portes and Bach,1985). Jews in New York City and Japanese in California during the early20th century, and Cubans in South Florida and Koreans in Los Angelesduring the late 20th century, are leading cases (Portes and Manning, 1986).Even if these ethnic enclaves are confined to a few ethnic groups, it is wellestablished that ethnic communities usually develop a complex network offormal and informal means of meeting their own needs (Bailey and Wald-inger, 1991; Bonacich and Modell, 1980; Kwong, 1987; Light, 1972).

These theories of immigrant adaptation, combined with findings onthe growth (Skocpol and Amenta, 1986) and privatization (Gronbjerg, 1982;Kramer, 1981; Salamon, 1987; Smith and Lipsky, 1993) of the welfare state,suggest a welfare state channeling explanation for the development of eth-nic organizations. Ethnic organizations help immigrants and refugees copewith the hardships of migration and settlement. They are part of an ethniccommunity's effort to achieve a degree of institutional completeness. Thewelfare state is a second system for meeting some human needs, and it issuperimposed on ethnic communities. Some welfare state programs erodeinstitutional completeness by enabling members of an ethnic community tomeet needs through public programs, thus diminishing the function of eth-nic organizations. But other programs promote institutional completenessby funding nonprofit organizations, including those with an ethnic affili-ation. This welfare state channeling theory provides an alternative expla-

284 Hein

nation to ethnic competition and resource mobilization theory for the for-mation of ethnic organizations.

DATA AND MEASURES

Data on Indochinese refugee organizations (hereafter referred to asmutual assistance associations or MAAs) are derived from the IndochinaResource Action Center's listing (Khoa and Bui, 1985) of IndochineseMAAs grouped by state in 1984 (N = 800). These ethnic organizationsmeet a wide range of community needs (see Table I). Only one in fourhave a social welfare function, typically providing resettlement services. Themajority have a cultural function, such as operating a religious institutionor teaching native languages to the second generation. The remaining one-fifth addresses other needs of an ethnic community. Special interest MAAsinclude social clubs and professional associations. MAAs with a politicalfunction usually seek to influence U.S. foreign and immigration policy.MAAs promoting economic development, typically the formation of smallbusinesses, are the least numerous. The diversity of Indochinese MAAs pro-vides a rigorous test for theories that seek to explain the formation of ethnicorganizations.

Analyzing MAAs by state is a form of cross-sectional analysis and issubject to greater data distortion than time-series analysis. This problem ismitigated in the case of Indochinese refugees because of their recent mi-gration. The peak years of the migration were 1980 and 1981, when nearly300,000 Indochinese refugees arrived. Another 100,000 refugees arrivedduring 1982 and 1983. Thus nearly two-thirds of the 716,000 Indochineserefugees in the United States by the end of 1984 had arrived during theprevious four years. Data from 1984 are therefore temporally meaningfulfor Indochinese refugees because they tap the formation of ethnic organi-

Table I. Indochinese Mutual AssistanceAssociations by Function (in Percent)a

CultureSocial welfareSpecial interestPoliticsEconomic development

55241174

"N - 800; percentages do not total 100due to rounding. Source: Khoa and Bui(1984).

285Ethnic Organizations

zations in the phase of initial community formation following a mass mi-gration.

The dependent variable developed from the IRAC data is the numberof Indochinese MAAs in a state, a measure of organizational proliferation.California contains 25% of all MAAs while the next highest state (Illinois)contains only 5%. Despite dramatically skewing the model, California can-not be eliminated from the analysis because it contains the plurality of theIndochinese population (40%) and the organizations produced by thispopulation. Separate models will be presented that include and excludeCalifornia in order to determine the degree to which this one state shapesthe regression coefficients.

An obvious variable that needs to be controlled for is the size of theIndochinese population in 1984. A second is the environment for nonprofitorganizations in general. The number of national headquarters for fraternal(Schmidt, 1980) and foreign interest, nationality, and ethnic nonprofit or-ganizations (Gale Research, 1994) in a state controls for local factors thatmay shape the formation of social organizations among all groups. Schmidt(1980) and Gale Research (1994) provide comparable figures (a correlationof .65) for these types of nonprofits in 1979 and 1984, respectively. Theyare averaged to produce a single measure.

Resource mobilization theory suggests several variables that need tobe considered when explaining the formation of organizations. A charac-teristic of states that may influence Indochinese MAAs is the distributionof a population between cities and rural areas, a variable measured by theproportion of a state's population living in an urban area in 1980. Statesalso vary in the wealth of their residents, and the variable per capita incomein 1980 controls for the resources available to refugees living in differentlabor markets. Net migration of refugees into a state after initial settlementin another state (known as secondary migration) taps states that containethnic communities that are magnets for refugees. The best estimate ofsecondary migration is a study that determined net in-migration for theyears 1978, 1979, and 1980 (Desbarats, 1985). The study found that 34%of states experienced net in-migration in at least one of these years; severalstates had it in all three years. Thus the secondary migration variable usesan interval scale: 1 = net in-migration in none of the three years; 2 = netin-migration in one of three years; 3 = net in-migration in two of threeyears; and 4 = net in-migration in all three years.

Olzak (1992:183) defines ethnic conflict as "a public action by two ormore persons...in which two or more ethnic groups confront or attack oneanother." I measured the number of anti-Indochiriese events in a state be-tween 1975 and 1984. These events excluded crime and had to evidencesome motivation against the refugees as an ethnic group. They ranged from

286 Hein

anti-arrival petitions and arson to assaults and killings. Unlike Olzak, I in-cluded actions by individuals. Collective vs. individual actions are differentwith respect to the level of mobilization within the aggressor group. Theyare not necessarily different with respect to their effect on the victim group.For example, the killing of six Indochinese children in Stockton, California,by a lone gunman mobilized not only Indochinese refugees but AsianAmericans in general (Espiritu, 1992).

Anti-Indochinese events were derived from Newsbank, a microfichecollection of articles from more than 500 local newspapers, and the NewYork Times Index. Reports on anti-Asian violence by the Japanese AmericanCitizens League (1985) and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (1987)added additional events, yielding a total of 48. While 48 events appears tobe a small number (4.8 per year), it is very close to the annual number ofethnic conflicts found by Olzak (1992) for the period from 1877 to 1914(4.1 per year). The slightly higher number in my sample is due to the in-clusion of events involving individuals. Since 65% of states had no anti-In-dochinese events, this variable is treated as a nominal variable, with 0 =no events and 1 = some events. To tap the severity of these events, a seconddummy variable measuring only events involving injury or deaths is used:0 = no violent events and 1 = some violent events.

Three variables test the welfare state channeling theory. ORR expen-ditures for refugee social services in 1981 measure the funding available tostates to purchases services from public and nonprofit organizations (U.S.ORR, 1981). Four states received no funding that year, and I substitutedtheir funding for the following year; only two other states never receivedfunding. At this time funding depended on the specific resettlement needsof a state. Soon the ORR began awarding funds through a block-grant typeof formula determined by the size of the refugee population and the needto build congressional support for the refugee program. Thus fiscal year1981 is an appropriate measure given that this variable seeks to tap theprivatization of the welfare state rather than the size of the refugee popu-lation or political considerations.

A second variable measuring welfare state channeling is the propor-tion of Indochinese refugees in a state receiving cash public assistance in1984 (U.S. ORR, 1985). Variation in welfare rates among refugees is morean indicator of state eligibility criteria than the actual economic conditionof the refugees (Rumbaut, 1989). Because of the wide variation in theamount of welfare benefits provided by state governments, a third variableis needed—per capita welfare payments—that taps the dollar value of pub-lic assistance for recipients. If the welfare state has a channeling effect onethnic organizations, then higher public assistance rates and per capita wel-


fare payments should be associated with fewer MAAs, while higher ORRspending should be associated with more MAAs.

RESULTS

The means and standard deviations for the variables reveal severalthings about the process of ethnic organization formation among Indochi-nese refugees (see Table II). An average state has 16 Indochinese MAAs,although the large standard deviation indicates substantial variation aboveand below this mean. On average, a state receives $1.4 million from theORR to purchase social services for refugees, although again there is widevariation among the states, with Alaska and Delaware receiving no fundingwhile California received $9.2 million. This substantial amount of fundingindicates how significant privatization of the welfare state can be for ethnicorganizations. Conversely, 9% of the Indochinese population in a state re-ceive cash public assistance, although the minimum of 0% and the maxi-mum of 27% indicate considerable variation among the states. Finally, percapita welfare spending continues this trend with a standard deviation ofalmost $100 on a mean of $225. These data reveal the multiple influencesthe welfare state could have on ethnic organizations in Indochinese com-munities.

The zero-order correlation matrix (available upon request) revealsonly two independent variables whose association with others might provea problem in ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. The variable statepopulation urban is correlated (.644) with state per capita income. How-ever, alternatively deleting these variable from the regression model re-sulted in only very minor changes in the coefficients for the remaining

Table II. Means and Standard Deviations (With/Without California)

Variable

Number of Indochinese MAAsORR expenditures (1000s $)% Refugees receiving public assistancePer capita welfare spending ($)Anti-Indochinese eventsViolent Anti-Indochinese events% State population urbanState per capita income ($)Secondary migrationIndochinese populationSocial nonprofit headquarters

Mean

15.7/11.91381/12239.4/9.1225/221.3S/.34.15/.1467.6/67.19594/95541.6/1.613,937/85146.5/6.3

StandardDeviation

29.5/11.61868/15035.7/5.599/96.48/.4S.37/.3S15/151420/1404.981.9339,971/998516.1/16.3

Hein288

Table III. Standardized OLS Coefficients for Regression Model Estimatingthe Number of Indochinese MAAS by State (N = 51)a

Independent Variable

Indochinese populationSocial nonprofit headquartersState population urbanState per capita incomeSecondary migrationAnti-Indochinese eventsViolent anti-Indochinese eventsORR expendituresRefugees receiving public assistancePer capita welfare spending

R2

Adjusted R2

Ftest

Beta

.791*-.061.033

-.030-.029-.044-.001.300b

-.021-.004

.961

.95299.55Sb

(15.934)(1.365)(.757)(.591)(.644)

(1.021)(.021)

(4.571)(.516)(.089)

aThe t-values in parentheses. (Includes Washington, DC.)bp < .001.

variable. There is also a correlation (.740) between ORR expenditures andthe size of the Indochinese population. Yet removing ORR expendituresfrom the model produced only a slight change in the coefficient for Indo-Chinese population, and vice versa. Given this pattern and the fact thatthere are no alternative measures for these variables, I now turn to theresults of OLS regression (see Table III).

Of the two control variables, the number of headquarters of socialorganizations among all groups is unrelated to the number of IndochineseMAAs in the state. The local conditions that determine the formation ofnonprofit organizations such as fraternals for natives do not appear to in-fluence Indochinese refugees. Instead, the size of the Indochinese popula-tion is the major determinant of the number of Indochinese MAAs in astate. This finding reflects the refugees' recent arrival in the United Statesand their immediate efforts to use nonprofit organizations to establish theinfrastructure of their communities.

None of the variables derived from resource mobilization theory pre-dict the number of Indochinese MAAs in a state. It is particularly surprisingthat the level of urbanization in a state is not associated with the prevalenceof Indochinese organizations. Park (1920/1967) believed cities were a cen-tral feature of modern society and served as an important catalyst for theformation of ethnic organization among immigrants. Yet the growth of na-tional institutions since the early 1900s has leveled many of the differencesbetween rural and urban areas. Given the findings on welfare state chan-neling discussed below, one can conclude that the expansion of the welfare


state is a development affecting ethnic organizations regardless of their geo-graphic location.

Variables derived from ethnic competition theory also fail to predictthe prevalence of Indochinese MAAs. Although these variables are not sta-tistically significant, their negative association with the dependent variablesuggests a pattern more consistent with ethnic competition theory's predic-tions for African Americans than for European immigrants (Olzak andWest, 1991; Olzak, 1992). Where attacks on European immigrants between1877 and 1914 spurred the formation of their ethnic organizations, attacksagainst African Americans during that period suppressed their organiza-tions.

As predicted by welfare state channeling theory, public assistance andORR expenditures have opposite associations with the prevalence of In-dochinese MAAs, as does per capita welfare spending. ORR spending onsocial services is channeled through public and nonprofit organizations, andthus promotes Indochinese MAAs. But public assistance goes directly torefugee households, thus reducing the need for ethnic organizations. Whilethe two variables measuring public assistance are in the predicted direction,they are not statistically significant.

ORR expenditures promote the formation of Indochinese organiza-tions at a statistically significant level. The greater the funding for refugeesocial services in a state, the more Indochinese MAAs in a state. AlthoughORR funding is typically for refugee organizations providing social services,these resettlement organizations have a multiplier effect on other organi-zations within the refugee community. For example, in Chicago, the Cam-bodian Association of Illinois started independently but then receivedsubstantial public funding to assist refugees with employment and otherresettlement needs. Within a few years this MAA sponsored a Buddhisttemple, which is now operated by a Cambodian Buddhist Association.Shortly after the temple's founding, a schism led a faction to create a sec-ond temple, and consequently a second Buddhist association. State fundingthus has direct and indirect effects on the formation of ethnic organizations.

Removing California from the model (because it contains 25% of allMAAs and 40% of the Indochinese population) does little to change thefindings just discussed (table available upon request). The primary changeis that ORR spending now is the best predictor of the prevalence of In-dochinese MAAs (a coefficient of .671), while the effects of Indochinesepopulation size weaken considerably but remain significant (a coefficientof .340). The two variables measuring public assistance also strengthen inthe absence of California, particularly per capita welfare spending, but notsufficiently to make them statistically significant.

290 Hein

Overall, the model explains 95% of the variation in the prevalenceof Indochinese MAAs when California is included, and 69% when it isdeleted. Such high proportions are not uncommon when using aggregatedata. The fact that only two variables account for most of the model's ex-planatory power is consistent with the different cycles of nonprofit organi-zation formation among migrants and natives. Recently arrived refugeeslacking a preexisting ethnic community will engage in a burst of communalorganizing, and thus will be less influenced by the environmental factorswhich affect natives. The most important finding, however, is not the pro-portion of variation explained by the model but the fact that the secondbest predictor of the prevalence of Indochinese MAAs is a variable—statespending—absent from both ethnic competition and resource mobilizationtheories.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Robert E. Park believed immigrants adaptated to modernization byforming ethnic organizations. The expansion of the welfare state since the1930s is a key feature of modernization, and its influence on ethnic organi-zations validates Park's insight. The welfare state's effects on ethnic organi-zations, however, have been in ways Park could not have predicted.

Both the welfare state and ethnic communities are systems for meet-ing human needs. Public programs compete with the formal and informalmeans by which ethnic communities seek institutional completeness. Theresult has been a historical erosion of the self-sufficiency of many ethniccommunities. Ethnic organizations are one casualty of this process. Withinthis macrolevel trend, however, is a more recent development in social pol-icy benefiting ethnic organizations. The privatization of the welfare statesince the 1960s means that nonprofit organizations can receive public fund-ing to provide social services. This policy has created opportunities for eth-nic organizations that meet the criteria for tax-exempt status. By selectivelyproviding resources, the welfare state channels the organizational activitieswithin ethnic communities.

This welfare state channeling theory is partially supported in the caseof Indochinese refugee MAAs. The second best predictor of the numberof Indochinese MAAs in a state is the amount of spending by the U.S.Office of Refugee Resettlement for refugee social services. The fact thatthe prevalence of Indochinese MAAs increases as expenditures increase isa strong indication that the privatization of the welfare state influences eth-nic organizations. This new relationship between ethnic organizations andthe welfare state means that social policy can shape the organizational in-


frastructure of the ethnic community and thus the representation of eth-nicity.

While state spending on social services for Indochinese refugees sup-ports a welfare state channeling theory, the effects of public assistance useby refugees do not. Neither the proportion of refugees receiving public as-sistance nor the dollar value of this aid reduce the prevalence of Indochi-nese MAAs. States with a high proportion of refugees on welfare and highper capita benefits do not discourage refugees from organizing nonprofitorganizations to meet their social needs.

The data examined in this paper are from 1984 because that yeartaps the initial community building among Indochinese refugees followingtheir mass migration from 1975 to 1983. But the privatization of the welfarestate in general, and state support of refugee organizations in particular,continues. A new policy by the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement seeksto expand the organizational activities of refugees beyond the local level.Beginning in 1995 it spent $500,000:

to assist ethnic organizations, comprised mainly of refugees or former refugees, toconduct multi-State or national activities which address issues of community-building,community and family strengthening, cultural adjustment, and mutually supportiveactivities among ethnic organizations, such as information exchange, leadershiptraining, resource development, and building volunteer networks (Federal Register,1995:3,420)

This program covers refugees from Southeast Asia as well as thosefrom Cuba, Ethiopia, Iraq, and the former Soviet Union. Although onlyabout one in five international migrants arrive in the United States withrefugee status, the existence of public funding to support their ethnic or-ganizations illustrates the new role of the welfare state in shaping the or-ganizational expression of ethnicity. The irony of the welfare state's impacton ethnic communities is that some Indochinese MAAs actually receivepublic funding to reduce the number of refugees receiving public assistance.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and editor for theirhelpful comments on previous drafts of this article.

REFERENCES

Abhay, Krisna Associations. Indochina Resource Ac-1991 Leadership and Management: A Com- tion Center. Washington, DC: Indo-

parative Study of Mutual Assistance china Resource Action Center.

292 Hein

tion


Barkan, Steven E.1986 "Intel-organizational conflict in the

southern civil rights movement." So-ciological Inquiry 56:190-209.

Barth, Fredrik1969 Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Bos-

ton: Little, Brown.Bailey, Thomas and Roger Waldinger1991 "Primary, secondary and enclave labor

markets: A training systems ap-proach." American Sociological Re-view 56:432-445.

Bonacich, Edna and John Modell1980 The Economic Basis of Ethnic Soli-

darity: Small Businesses and the Japa-nese American Community. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Brass, Paul1985 "Ethnic groups and the state." In Paul

Brass (ed.), Ethnic Groups and theState: 1-56. Totowa: Barnes and NobleBooks.

Breton, Raymond1964 "Institutional completeness of ethnic

communities and the personal rela-tions of immigrants." American Jour-nal of Sociology 70:193-205.

Desbarats, Jacqueline1985 "Indochinese resettlement in the

United States." Annals of the Associa-tion of American Geographers 75:522-538.

Enloe, Cynthia1981 "The growth of the state and ethnic

mobilization: The American experi-ence." Ethnic and Racial Studies4:123-136.

Espiriru, Yen L.1992 Asian American Ethnicity: Bridging

Institutions and Identities. Philadel-phia, PA: Temple University Press.

Federal Register1995 "Administration for children and

families; Office of Refugee Resettle-ment." Federal Register (January17):3416-3423.

Gale Research1994 Encyclopedia of Associations. Detroit,

MI: Gale Research.Gold, Steven J.1992 Refugee Communities: A Compara-

tive Field Study. Newbury Park, CA:

Grenbjerg, Kirsten1982 "Private welfare and the welfare state:

Recent U.S. patterns." Social ServiceReview 56:1-26.

Haines, Herbert H.1984 "Black radicalization and the funding

of civil rights: 1957-1970." Social Prob-lems 32:31-43.

Hein, Jeremy1993 States and International Migrants:

The Incorporation of IndochineseRefugees in the United States andFrance. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Indochina Resource Action Center1986 Indochinese Community Leadership

Convention: A Report. Washington,DC: Indochina Resource Action Cen-ter.

Japanese American Citizens League1985 Documents on racially motivated anti-

Asian incidents and events, 1981-1985[Personal communication to author].San Francisco: Japanese AmericanCitizens League.

Jenkins, J. Craig1983 "Resource mobilization theory and the

study of social movements." AnnualReview of Sociology 9:527-553.

Jenkins, J. Craig and Craig M. Eckert1986 "Channeling black insurgency: Elite

patronage and professional socialmovement organizations in the devel-opment of the black movement."American Sociological Review 51:812-829.

Jenkins, Shirley, ed1988 Ethnic Associations and the Welfare

State: Services to Immigrants in FiveCountries. New York: Columbia Uni-versity Press.

Khoa, Le X. and Diana D. Bui1985 "Southeast Asian mutual assistance as-

sociations: An approach for commu-nity development." In T. C. Owan(ed.), Southeast Asian Mental Health:Treatment, Prevention, Services,Training, and Research: 209-224.Washington, DC: National Institutefor Mental Health.

Kramer, Ralph M.1981 Voluntary Agencies and the Welfare

State. Berkeley: University of Califor-nia Press.

Kwong, Peter1987 The New Chinatown. New York: Hill

and Wang.Sage.

294 Hein

Light, Ivan H.1972 Ethnic Enterprise in America: Busi-

ness and Welfare Among Chinese,Japanese, and Blacks. Berkeley: Uni-versity of California Press.

Magill, Robert1985 "Ethnicity and social welfare in

American cities: A historical view." InLionel A. Maldonado and Joan Moore(ed.), Urban Ethnicity in the UnitedStates: 185-209. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.

McAdam, Doug1982 Political Process and the Development

of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970. Chi-cago: University of Chicago Press.

McAdam, Doug, John D. McCarthy, andMayer N. Zald1988 "Social Movements." In Neil J. Smel-

sor (ed.), Handbook of Sociology: 695-737. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McCarthy, John D., David W. Britt, andMark Wolfson1991 "The institutional channeling of social

movements by the state in the UnitedStates." Research in Social Move-ments, Conflicts, and Change 13:45-76.

Munis, Aldon1984 The Origins of the Civil Rights Move-

ment: Black Communities Organizingfor Change. New York: Free Press.

Nagel, Joane1994 "Constructing ethnicity: Creating and

recreating ethnic identity and culture."Social Problems 41:152-176.

Nagel, Joan and Sue Olzak1982 "Ethnic mobilization in new and old

states: An extension of the competi-tion model." Social Problems 30:127-143.

Olzak, Sue1992 The Dynamics of Ethnic Competition

and Conflict. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press.

Olzak, Sue and Elizabeth West1991 "Ethnic conflict and the rise and fall

of ethnic newspapers." American So-ciological Review 56:458-474.

Park, Robert E.1967 "The foreign language press and social

progress." (1920*) In Ralph H. Turner(ed.), Robert E. Park on Social Con-

trol and Collective Behavior: 133-144.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fortes, Alejandro and Robert Bach1985 Latin Journey: Cuban and Mexican

Immigrants in the United States.Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Fortes, Alejandro and Robert D. Manning1986 "The immigrant enclave: Theory and

empirical examples." In Sue Olzak andJoane Nagel (eds.), Competitive Eth-nic Relations: 47-68. Orlando, FL:Academic Press.

Portes, Alejandro and Rubin G. Rumbaut1990 Immigrant America: A Portrait.

Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Renkiewicz, Frank1980 "The profits of nonprofit Capitalism:

Polish fraternalism and beneficial in-surance in America." In S. Cummings(ed.), in Self-Help in Urban America:Patterns of Minority Business Enter-prise: 113-129. Port Washington, NY:Kennikat Press.

Rumbaut, Ruben G.1989 "The structure of refuge: Southeast

Asian refugees in the United States,1975-1985." International Review ofComparative Public Policy 1:97-129.

Salamon, Lester M.1987 "Partners in public service: The scope

and theory of government-nonprofitrelations." In Walter W. Powell (ed.),The Nonprofit Sector: A ResearchHandbook: 99-117. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.

Schmidt, Alvin J.1980 Greenwood Encyclopedia of Ameri-

can Institutions: Fraternal Organiza-tions. Westport, CT: GreenwoodPress.

See, Catherine O. and William J. Wilson1988 "Race and ethnicity." In Neil J. Smel-

sor (ed.), Handbook of Sociology: 223-242. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Skocpol, Theda and Edwin Amenta1986 "States and social policy." Annual Re-

view of Sociology 12:131-157.Smith, Steven R. and Michael Lipsky1993 Nonprofits for Hire: The Welfare

State in the Age of Contracting. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

'Original publication date.


U.S. Commission on Civil Rights1987 Recent Activities Against Citizens and

Residents of Asian Descent. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Commission on CivilRights.

U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement1981 Report to Congress: Refugee Reset-

tlement Program. Washington, DC:U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement.

1985 Report to Congress: Refugee Reset-tlement Program. Washington, DC:U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement.

Yancey, William, Eugene Erickson, andRichard Juiliani1976 "Emergent ethnicity: A review and re-

formulation." American SociologicalReview 41:391-403.