Rural Sociology 74(2), 2009, pp. 241–269
Copyright E 2009, by the Rural Sociological Society
Strong Ties, Weak Ties, and Human Capital:
Latino Immigrant Employment Outside the Enclave*
Max J. Pfeffer and Pilar A. Parra
Development Sociology Department
Cornell University
ABSTRACT This study focuses on the role of social ties and human capital in
the integration of Latino immigrants into the local economy. This analysis
extends earlier research by focusing on more rural contexts with limited
labor-market opportunities and less access to social resources provided by
coethnics. We reconsider conclusions of previous studies by focusing on
areas with limited labor-market opportunities and less access to resources
provided by coethnics. Using data from in-depth interviews, focus-group
discussions, and surveys of former farmworkers in five rural communities in
New York, we consider how individuals move from agricultural to other types
of employment. Multinomial logit and ordinary least squares regression
analyses confirm indications from our qualitative data that strong social ties,
weak ties, and human capital all play distinctive parts in the economic
integration of immigrants outside the ethnic enclave. These resources have
the most positive impact on incomes when they contribute to the
immigrants’ self-reliance in finding employment. This finding is consistent
with observations from the social-network literature that those who are less
reliant on strong social ties are better able to take advantage of a broader
range of labor-market opportunities.
Introduction
Ethnic enclaves represent contexts with concentrated social resources
that help immigrants become integrated into the host economy.
Studies have shown that the enclaves provide employment opportunities and fertile ground for entrepreneurial activities (Portes and Jensen
1989; Portes and Manning 1986; Portes and Shafer 2007). But research
also has shown that the relative earnings advantage of immigrant
employees varies by context. Sanders and Nee (1987:762) found that
‘‘immigrant minority workers in the ‘open’ economy tend to receive
higher returns to human capital than immigrant minority workers in an
ethnic enclave economy.’’
* Direct correspondence to Max J. Pfeffer, Development Sociology Department,
Warren Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853–7801. Tel. 607–255–1676; e-mail
[email protected]. This research was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
Fund for Rural America (grant no. 2001-36201-11283) and the Cornell University
Agricultural Experiment Station (grant nos. 33452 and 159473). We are grateful to Doris
Slesinger, Ed Wellin, and anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions on previous drafts.
242
Rural Sociology, Vol. 74, No. 2, June 2009
The latter insight is especially important as immigrants move to
nontraditional destinations where ethnic resources are less concentrated. How do more ‘‘open’’ labor markets function in this context? In
particular, what sorts of social and human-capital resources do
immigrants draw on to gain access to employment opportunities? Such
settings may contain more limited ethnic resources to draw on to find
employment. This point deserves particular attention in contexts with
highly stratified, industry-specific demand for workers, like rural labor
markets. Under such circumstances, limited cross-ethnic interactions
reinforce group boundaries and in-group social ties, restricting the
range of labor markets available to immigrants (Nee, Sanders, and
Sernau 1994; Sanders, Nee, and Sernau 2002). Thus, a focus on such
labor markets is useful sociologically to examine the relative importance of strong social ties, weak ties, and human capital for immigrant
employment.
The ethnic-enclave literature offers no direct evidence of the relative
importance of specific social ties, especially outside enclaves. Because
much of this literature is based on Census Public Use Micro-sample
(PUMS) data, researchers did not have direct measures of social ties
available for their analyses. Hence, much of the past debate centered
on how best to define the ethnic enclave (e.g., based on place of
residence or employment or industry of employment?) (Nee et al. 1994;
Zhou and Logan 1989). Since the PUMS data do not have direct
measures of ethnic social ties, location inside or outside the enclave or
employment in industries in which immigrants cluster served as a proxy
measure. Researchers assumed that ethnic ties were predominant
inside the enclaves of concentrated populations of coethnics. However,
this assumption did not exclude the possibility that strong social ties
with coethnics could play an important role in helping immigrants gain
access in ‘‘open’’ labor markets. A substantial body of research shows
that ethnic social ties play a pivotal role in facilitating access to
employment and finding higher paying jobs (Aguilera 2005; Aguilera
and Massey 2003; Granovetter 1974, 1983; Massey 1999; Waldinger and
Lichter 2003), and it appears likely that such ties are also important
outside ethnic enclaves. Earlier studies on the effects of ethnic enclaves,
however, focused on large metropolitan areas with sizable ethnic
communities and relatively strong labor demand.
This article examines how Latino immigrants find nonfarm
employment in rural communities. Latino immigrants, especially
Mexicans, often arrive in rural communities as farmworkers, recruited
to such employment through social networks built on strong social ties
to family and community of origin (Martin, Fix, and Taylor 2006; Parra
Strong Ties, Weak Ties, and Latino Immigrant Employment —
Pfeffer and Parra
243
and Pfeffer 2006). Increasingly, these workers are found in some of the
most remote American communities, and with worsening social and
economic conditions in the regions of origin (especially rural Mexico),
and the increased security at and difficulty of border crossings, they are
settling in those communities (Durand and Massey 2004; Kandel and
Cromartie 2004; Murphy, Blanchard, and Hill 2001; Pfeffer 2008;
Pfeffer and Parra 2004). In addition, they are bringing their families
with them, and studies have shown the presence of families to be an
important factor in immigrants’ social and economic integration (Nee
and Sanders 2001; Sanders and Nee 1996). Because farm employment
is often seasonal, immigrants who wish to settle in rural communities
must secure year-round employment off the farm. To understand the
integration of immigrants into community life, we examine how Latino
farmworkers who have settled in five New York communities obtain
employment outside of agriculture.
Integration of Latino Immigrants into Rural Communities
Foreigners have long been an important labor source for U.S.
agriculture, and they have become even more important since the
enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986. This
federal legislation legalized the immigration status of many Mexican
farmworkers and, together with economic reforms in Mexico, established conditions for the continued influx of Mexican agricultural
workers from rural Mexico (Durand and Massey 2004; Foner 2001;
Griffith et al. 1995; Parra and Pfeffer 2006; Smith 2001). In 2000, the
U.S. Department of Labor reported that about four out of five
farmworkers in the United States were Mexican (Depalma 2000). This
proportion compares with about one of every two farmworkers just a
decade before. The growing number of foreign farmworkers arriving
and increasingly settling in rural America makes their social and
economic integration an important community-development concern
(Jensen 2006; Kandel and Cromartie 2004; Lichter and Johnson 2006).
While there is an extensive body of literature on immigration and social
integration, it is heavily focused on urban settings and only recently has
work on the experience of recent immigrant settlement in new
destination rural communities begun to appear (Crowley, Lichter,
and Qian 2006; Jensen 2006; Lichter and Johnson 2006; Martin et al.
2006; Murphy et al. 2001).
Variation in immigrants’ employment has been attributed to a
number of factors including the economic conditions at the time of
arrival, the type of jobs available, the organization of the labor process,
244
Rural Sociology, Vol. 74, No. 2, June 2009
technological innovation, the relative size of the immigrant and
receiving communities, the strength and commitment of social
organizations serving the immigrant community, cultural values and
beliefs, and the receptivity of established community members
(Bonacich and Modell 1980; Glazer and Moynihan 1970; Lieberson
1980; Massey 1999; Parra 1984; Pfeffer 2000; Portes and Manning 1986;
Sanders and Nee 1996). The sociology of immigrant integration has
been heavily oriented toward urban settings, and many of its key
insights may not apply in rural areas. Portes (1995) and associates’ work
on immigrant assimilation and the enclave economy played a pivotal
role in this urban-oriented sociology. The concept of the ethnic enclave
situated the process of immigrant assimilation explicitly in a labormarket context. However, ethnic enclaves are most relevant to urban
economies where a very large and diverse immigrant community offers
the immigrants opportunities superior to those found in secondary
labor markets (Wilson and Portes 1980). Some debate has centered on
the relative importance of social relationships and resources provided
by coethnics as opposed to the human-capital assets of individuals (Nee
and Sanders 2001; Portes and Manning 1986; Portes and Shafer 2007;
Sanders and Nee 1987). The urban-focused-enclave research assumes a
relatively large and diverse immigrant enclave community, and the
alternative urban-based human-capital research assumes diverse and
open labor markets. Under the latter circumstances, a variety of labormarket outcomes can be observed, including more porous ethnic
boundaries, greater ethnic social closure, or some sort of mixed, or
multiethnic, economy. The specific outcome depends on the number
and size of ethnic groups and the size and condition of the overall
economy (Portes and Rumbaut 2001). The approaches and assumptions underlying this urban-focused research may not be well suited to
conditions in rural communities.
Mexicans account for a large proportion (about 31 percent) of the
foreign born population in the United States, a majority (56 percent) of
unauthorized immigrants, and a large share of new-destination
immigrants (Fix and Passel 2001; Kritz and Gurak 2004; Passel 2006).
Historically, one of the distinctive features of Mexican migration to the
United States has been its circularity. Workers, usually single men, came
to the United States at a certain point in their life to earn money and
send it back to Mexico. Once they accumulated as much money as they
needed, they typically returned to their home communities in Mexico.
Thus, Mexican immigrants as a group may have had a permanent
presence in the southwestern United States, but relatively few
individuals settled there for extended periods (Chavez 1988; Massey
Strong Ties, Weak Ties, and Latino Immigrant Employment —
Pfeffer and Parra
245
et al. 1987). Over the last two decades, growing numbers of Mexicans in
rural and urban localities throughout the United States have settled
more permanently (Griffith et al. 1995; Martin et al. 2006; Murphy et al.
2001; Parra and Pfeffer 2006; Riosmena 2004). Throughout the United
States, the establishment of Mexican grocery stores, restaurants, and
civic associations is an indication of a more permanent Mexican
community presence. There is also evidence that more Mexican
families, as opposed to single men, are migrating to the United States
and settling in rural communities of the Midwest, South, and Northeast
where Mexican immigrants had previously seldom been found
(Cerrutti and Massey 2001; Griffith et al. 1995; Kandel and Cromartie
2004; Murphy et al. 2001; Parra and Pfeffer 2006). The presence of
family plays an important role in immigrant social and economic
integration. Sanders and Nee (1996) emphasize the importance of
family social capital in the labor-market success of immigrants
generally, and this is no different in rural economies. Pfeffer (1997)
observes that immigrant farmworkers who pooled extended family
resources enhanced their economic well-being compared to other
workers who were single or had smaller families. Family-based social
capital plays an especially critical role in social and economic
integration for immigrants like Mexicans who typically have little
financial or human capital (Nee and Sanders 2001). However, Sanders
et al. (2002) note that the effectiveness of such social capital in
facilitating access to employment outside the ethnic enclave is
influenced by the extent of ethnolinguistic closure. That is, when
immigrants lack English-language skills, family-based social capital
provides access to a narrower range of low-income, low-prestige jobs
that are often provided by coethnic entrepreneurs. These entrepreneurs themselves often face limited employment mobility because of
language barriers, and researchers have long recognized this as
contributing to high levels of self-employment among more skilled or
educated immigrants (Nee and Sanders 2001; Portes and Zhou 1996;
Sander and Nee 1996). Thus, labor-market mobility of immigrants in
rural areas may be constrained both by more limited labor-market
opportunities and ethnolinguistic closure. Faced with both these
limitations, rural immigrants would likely become socially isolated
and be at a higher risk of succumbing to the same social ills associated
with such isolation in urban settings (Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Wilson
1987).
This presence raises a number of questions about the relationship
between the destination community and the immigrants. How do
immigrants access the resources needed to be full participants in
246
Rural Sociology, Vol. 74, No. 2, June 2009
community life? This question is essentially about social capital if we
think of the latter as a means of gaining access to economic resources
(Aguilera and Massey 2003; Bourdieu 1986; Gurak and Caces 1992; Lin
2001; Nee and Sanders 2001; Portes 1998). However, critics have noted
that social capital can also exclude those who are not inside an
established network of social relations, or limit access to opportunities
outside that network. This criticism is especially salient in the case of
immigrants to rural communities. Because they are newcomers, they
have little social capital in the receiving community. The social capital
they have drawn on to migrate to the United States and obtain
agricultural employment may not be effective in obtaining other
employment (Portes 1998; Waldinger 1995). This social capital is based
mostly on social relations within immigrant communities. It reinforces
group identity, solidarity, and trust, and establishes a basis for in-group
exchanges. Some have argued that such relations allow immigrants to
obtain better incomes for human-capital endowments than they would
working outside the enclave (Aguilera 2005; Aguilera and Massey 2003;
Portes and Manning 1986).
While these social relations are advantageous in some ways, they may
also have limitations. Even if these opportunities exist, it is not clear
that immigrants are best served relying on coethnic social relations. As
noted above, Sanders and Nee (1987) claim that immigrant returns to
human capital are greater outside ethnic enclaves, and conclude that
immigrant employees are likely to experience more economic success if
they enter mainstream labor markets. Others have made similar
observations, arguing that dense social networks convey redundant
information and limit access to new knowledge and resources (Burt
1992, 2001; Granovetter 1973, 1974, 1983). The social capital of
immigrant social networks may also limit opportunities to enter
mainstream labor markets. As immigrant numbers grow within certain
occupations, those activities may become labeled as ‘‘immigrant jobs,’’
effectively segregating immigrants from the broader community
(Massey 1999; Waldinger and Lichter 2003). Nee and Sanders
(2001:391) provide a useful summary of the contextual factors that
result in social closure and more marked reliance on ethnic-based
social capital:
The opportunity to utilize ethnic-based social capital depends
on immigrants’ connections within the ethnic community, the
size and growth-rate of that community, and the diversity and
scale of its institutions. Thus, the presence of an ethnic
economy shapes the choice-set for newly arrived immigrants by
offering them an array of ethnically bounded opportunities in
Strong Ties, Weak Ties, and Latino Immigrant Employment —
Pfeffer and Parra
247
which ethnic labor markets provide mechanisms for transferring job skills to immigrant workers.
As migrants move out of agricultural employment and begin to settle
in communities with little or no presence of coethnics, they may have to
discover new ways of gaining access to employment, housing,
transportation, and other resources. Sociologists and economists have
long argued that connections outside the immediate network of family
and friends are an important factor in occupational mobility and
economic success (Burt 1992, 2001; Granovetter 1973; Lin 2001; Portes
1998).
The analysis of immigrant social and economic integration in rural
settings offers a useful focus for examining the salience and relative
importance of some key concepts from social-network theory. Three key
points are relevant here. (1) Strong network ties are an important
direct and easily accessible source of information and serve as an
important motivation for social integration. (2) Weak network ties are a
source of information about the resources or opportunities found
outside the tightly bounded group, and can be especially important to
those who are relatively disadvantaged in accessing labor markets. (3)
Some combination of strong and weak ties is most effective in various
forms of market integration, and the most effective balance between
strong and weak ties depends on whether the individual (or firm) has
advantageous market access or not. To be more specific, those who are
most advantaged in market access benefit from strong network ties,
whereas the disadvantaged are best served by weak ties (Granovetter
1983; Uzzi 1999; Wilson 1998).
Our overarching objectives in the analysis that follows are (1) to
examine processes of immigrant occupational mobility in rural settings
and (2) to determine whether or not these processes are distinct from
those identified in urban settings. This article addresses the following
sociological questions: How effective are strong social or ethnic ties in
facilitating access to employment in areas with few coethnics and weak
labor demand? If immigrants are less able to draw on social resources
provided by coethnics, do they draw on other social resources to access
employment? How important is human capital relative to different
forms of social capital under these circumstances?
Data and Methods
Our analysis draws on a variety of data including focus-group interviews,
key-informant interviews, and community-based surveys of former
farmworkers. Our research focuses on five New York communities
248
Rural Sociology, Vol. 74, No. 2, June 2009
selected for the presence of a sizable population of current and former
farmworkers. In each case, agriculture, especially fruit and vegetable
production, remains an important component of the local economy.
Three of the communities we observed are in northwestern New York
and are relatively small, are located in an area that is rural in character,
and have experienced significant losses of nonagricultural industry in
recent decades. In contrast, two communities we observed are located
in southeastern New York, about 50 miles northwest of New York City.
The most distinctive feature of this area is the rapid urbanization of the
countryside, coupled with the flight of businesses and established
residents from the community centers.
Perhaps most important for the questions we address here, Latinos
are the fastest growing population segment in all these communities. In
each case, the census of population shows that the noninstitutionalized
minority population is growing, while the non-Hispanic white population is declining. Thus, the communities are becoming more diverse,
and without the influx of minorities, each of them would be
experiencing population decline (Pfeffer and Parra 2004).
Our analysis is based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative
data. One data source is 41 key-informant interviews. We identified
these interviewees through university-based extension programs,
agencies serving farmworkers, and public institutions and agencies
listed on community Web pages, for example, directories of schools,
police departments, mayor’s offices, and local churches. The key
informants interviewed included political, business, and religious
leaders, police and school officials, farmers, and governmental and
nongovernmental social-service providers. Our aim was to cover a
diverse array of informants that had direct or indirect contact with this
population as a result of their work and/or social position in their
communities. This set of interviews produced rich and diverse
information that allowed us to develop a general portrait of community
reactions to the presence of immigrants.
We conducted, usually jointly, the key-informant interviews. The
interview guide included open-ended questions that covered four main
points: (1) community members’ perceptions of contributions made
and problems created by immigrants; (2) ways immigrants were
involved in the community, for example, what economic contributions
they made; (3) the nature and extent of immigrants’ interactions with
other racial and ethnic groups in the community; (4) the informant’s
vision of the community in 10 years—with and without immigrants.
After each interview, we reviewed our notes and debriefed to verify key
information gathered during the interview.
Strong Ties, Weak Ties, and Latino Immigrant Employment —
Pfeffer and Parra
249
We also conducted four focus groups with immigrant Latino current
and former farmworkers, each involving between 7 and 15 male and
female participants. All these focus-group participants were of Mexican
origin, except for three persons who reported Honduras as their
birthplace. We conducted the interviews in centers that serve
farmworkers (e.g., health centers), churches, and private homes.
Collaborators from the Cornell Migrant Program, Cornell Cooperative
Extension, the Catholic Rural Ministry, the Independent Farmworkers
Center (CITA), and the Farmworker Community Center (the Alamo)
identified and recruited the focus-group participants. The sessions were
between an hour and an hour and a half in duration. Both bilingual, we
conducted all the focus groups in Spanish; one served as note taker and
the other as facilitator. We taped and transcribed the sessions verbatim.
The discussions followed a series of open-ended questions that covered
several topics: (1) experiences in the community; (2) relationships with
long-term community members and other racial and ethnic groups; (3)
use and access to services in the community, for example, schools,
health services, banking, and shopping; (4) work experience in the
United States, for example, job search, who helped them find work, and
difficulties; (5) demographic data collected at the end of the session
(place of origin, education, age, and legal status).
The age of participants ranged from 15 to 65 years old. The number
of years working in the United States varied; some had first come 2 years
previously while others had been migrating for up to 29 years. Some
participants reported as many as 22 years living in the United States
Most reported having elementary and secondary school diplomas, and a
few had a high school diploma. Workers held a variety of jobs like work
in restaurants, construction, and factories. Over half of the focus-group
participants reported having family members (siblings, uncles, cousins)
who worked in New York or other parts of the United States
Approximately a third of those who had settled in the United States
did not have valid immigration documents. We conducted content
analysis of the transcripts of both key-informant interviews and focus
groups, independently analyzing the transcripts to identify patterns,
themes and categories. A third reader independently examined all
transcribed interviews and summarized main themes to validate those
we found.
We supplemented the qualitative data with survey data for immigrant
Latinos who formerly worked as farmworkers (N 5 293).1 We identified
1
These data are a subset of 656 interviews with former farmworkers. The larger data file
includes native-born former farmworkers not included in the analysis presented here.
250
Rural Sociology, Vol. 74, No. 2, June 2009
former farmworkers with the assistance of collaborators at Rural
Opportunities, Inc. (ROI), which works with farmworkers and other
underserved populations in rural or agricultural areas in four
northeastern states and Puerto Rico and is active in each of our study
communities. Most important for our study, ROI administers the U.S.
Department of Labor’s National Farmworker Job Program. ROI
maintains a list of past participants in that program, from which we
randomly identified former farmworkers as a starting point for locating
this target group for survey interviews. We screened subjects for
eligibility for the study, defining ‘‘former farmworkers,’’ as persons who
had once worked as farmworkers but who had not done farmwork in
the past year and did not plan to do farmwork during the year of the
interview and considering individuals whose parents were employed in
farmwork but had not themselves done farmwork and did not plan to
do farmwork during the year of the interview as ‘‘former farmworkers’’
for the purposes of our study. Examination of data on the ROI client
base indicated that it is currently heavily Mexican. The ROI client base
and a sample from the Mexican Migration Project (MMP) (from the
PERS118 file)2 are very similar in terms of age, gender, and educational
composition. However, because undocumented immigrants are not
eligible for the National Farmworker Job Program, the ROI client data
indicates just 13 percent undocumented, compared with about almost
77 percent in the MMP sample. Our sampling method allowed us to
avoid this underrepresentation of undocumented immigrants.
ROI’s National Farmworker Job Program client list was the source of
about 100 randomly selected seeds for our snowball sample. The seeds
were persons whose last known address was in one of the communities
included in our study. They were randomly selected by the ROI staff
member assigned to supervise the survey, and interviewers hired by ROI
received lists of seeds to contact. Interviewers asked eligible seeds to
identify additional individuals who they thought were former famworkers. With information provided by the interviewee, interviewers
contacted and screened the referrals, and if they were eligible,
interviewed them. These individuals in turn also identified individuals
who they thought qualified for the interviews. This snowball sampling
method helped to counteract the underrepresentation of the undocumented population in the ROI client data base (see Table 1 below).
Interviews lasted approximately 30 to 40 minutes. Insights gained
from the key-informant interviews and focus-group discussions
2
The MMP is a joint research project of Princeton University and the University of
Guadalajara. The PERS118 file comprises persons interviewed for the project since 2002.
Strong Ties, Weak Ties, and Latino Immigrant Employment —
Pfeffer and Parra
251
Table 1. Selected Characteristics of Mexican Nonagricultural Workers
from the Mexican Migration Project and Sample of Mexican Former
Farmworkers in Five New York Communities
Characteristic
Male (percent)
Married (percent)
Age (mean years)
Years of education (mean)
Immigration status (percent undocumented)
Occupation
Management/professional (percent)
Sales (percent)
Services (percent)
Production/transportation (percent)
Total time in United States (mean years)
N
Mexican Migration
Project
Upstate New York
Sample
81.8
60.0
33.0
8.1
77.8
57.6
66.7
32.9
8.3
52.6
2.5
8.4
32.3
56.8
5.0
5.0
39.7
50.7
9.3
1,538
8.0
219
Notes: The Mexican Migration Project data come from its PERS118 file, comprising
persons interviewed in 2002 or later, and employed in a nonfarm job in the United States.
For the purposes of this comparison, only employed Mexicans are included in this table.
Subsequent tables include all immigrant Latino former farmworkers interviewed.
informed development of our survey instrument. We pretested the
instrument with 64 individuals. The questionnaire covered general
demographic and employment information, friendships and acquaintances in the community, receipt of assistance in gaining access to a
variety of goods and services, civic participation, and perceptions of the
host community. We along with ROI supervisors carried out quality
control. Five of the persons contacted refused the interview, and eight
interviews were started but not completed. Unfortunately, we do not
have a complete record of the number of seeds and other referrals who
could not be located.
Because the survey data were not generated by a probability sample,
we cannot be certain that they are representative of the population.
Since about three-fourths of the immigrant Latinos we interviewed were
Mexicans, we compared Mexicans in our sample of former farmworkers
with the MMP sample. As indicated in Table 1, the two sample
populations were very similar in terms of age, years of education, and
occupation and were fairly close in years in the United States. The MMP
sample has a higher proportion of males and more undocumented
persons. This difference likely reflects that our sample is made up of
more immigrants who have decided to settle in the United States than
the MMP sample, which is based on a survey of households in Mexico.
For this reason our sample includes more families, and this is apparent
in the higher proportion of women and married individuals. Also,
252
Rural Sociology, Vol. 74, No. 2, June 2009
persons who have decided to settle in the United States permanently
have a strong incentive to obtain immigration documents. The
characteristics of our sample make us confident that our data fairly
accurately portray our target population.
Our method of identification using the snowball sample overlooks
individuals who left the area and results in some selectivity bias in our
sample, but there is no practical solution to this problem. The analysis
that follows is primarily qualitative, and we present the survey data to
supplement and substantiate our analysis of the qualitative data and to
describe the characteristics of the population of former farmworkers for
whom little systematic information is available. To better understand
and more rigorously examine patterns in our survey data we fit
multinomial logit and ordinary least squares regression models. These
analyses and all the significance tests presented must be carefully
scrutinized and not overinterpreted. In addition to not being sure that
our sample was randomly selected, we cannot be certain that the study
met the basic assumptions of multivariate analysis.
Findings: Immigrant Integration into Rural Nonfarm Employment
The process of labor-force integration in rural areas with small
communities of immigrant coethnics proceeds as a complex mix of
strong and weak social ties and human-capital assets. Whatever the
social resources immigrants draw on in new rural immigrant
destinations, they are likely to be scarce because movement of the
group to the community has been so recent. Because of this scarcity of
social connections, finding work does not advance in a linear fashion
from strong to weak ties and on to human-capital-based markets.
Instead, immigrants in these destinations mix social resources in ways
that allow them to get a foothold in local labor markets. Sometimes they
establish a point of labor-market integration as a stepping-stone to
other opportunities, and other times the very social resources that
allowed the immigrants to find work act to inhibit their ability to seek
other opportunities.
As is true in many new immigrant destinations in rural America,
strong social ties with family or friends from their village of origin often
lead them to agricultural employment. Once they enter into such
employment they find it difficult to develop social relationships beyond
their employer or outside the strong ties that led them to the
employment in the first place. During the crop production season,
especially during periods of peak activity like planting and harvesting,
workers have little time to do anything but work, eat, and rest. Typically
Strong Ties, Weak Ties, and Latino Immigrant Employment —
Pfeffer and Parra
253
they are confined to the farmstead during these times. Other farm
enterprises like dairy farms have more continuous demand for work
and because animals require close attention and care by workers, they
seldom venture far beyond the farmstead. Many employers also provide
workers with on-farm housing (sometimes for rent and other times rent
free), further isolating them from the wider community. The role of
housing in restricting employment opportunities to agriculture is
illustrated by the comments of a worker who had left agricultural
employment: ‘‘ … I have found jobs in factories, I don’t work in
agriculture, but now I have to pay rent, energy. What is left? Nothing.
And after 10 years you still have no savings. No, the life in the city is
expensive’’ (former farmworker who immigrated with his family and
settled in the area for more than 20 years). Confinement on the farm is
further enforced because a high percentage of the farm workforce does
not have valid immigration documents, and it is risky for them to step
off the farm in rural areas where they might be quite visible during
periods of heightened immigration enforcement (Parra and Pfeffer
2006). This confinement makes it difficult for immigrant farmworkers
to develop English-language skills, reinforcing their social isolation
(Pfeffer and Parra 2005). For these reasons farmworkers can find it
difficult to seek out other types of employment opportunities, as
indicated by the following exchange:
INTERVIEWER: Would you like to stay and settle in this
community?
RESPONDENT: I would say that for me to stay it would be
difficult. Why? Because, I don’t know the area. I do not know how
to do it. I do not know how things are here. More so because this
is my first time [in the United States], and here I go from the
‘‘traila’’ to the fields, from the ‘‘traila’’ to the store and back, and
that is all.
And for those who do find other employment, the attraction to
agriculture remains strong:
I have been working 15 years on everything; construction,
carpentry. Now I am in the apples. I’ve had a very good
experience with the apples, and I like it. (35-year-old male)
… I have worked in lots of jobs: in a music-instruments factory,
with horses, as a driver. Right now I am working in the fields.
(23-year-old- male worker with work permit obtained through
marriage with a Puerto Rican woman; he came when he was 14
years old, speaks English, has family in California)
254
Rural Sociology, Vol. 74, No. 2, June 2009
The last individual quoted is an interesting case, since his labormarket mobility is not limited by his immigration status or Englishlanguage ability. Beyond some affinity for agricultural work, his
experience as well as the examples cited before suggest that strong
social ties may constrain employment opportunities to certain types of
jobs. In this case, even after having been in the United States for nine
years, he was drawn back to farm employment. The network of family
and close friendship ties often retains its importance and continues to
influence labor-market opportunities and choices long after the initial
entry into the U.S. labor market. For example, a woman who had left
farmwork and who had lived in the United States for about four years
with her husband and had two children born in the United States
commented: ‘‘My brother told me about the job in the packing factory,
that is how I found this job.’’ For many of the newcomers without family
connections, the relationship with coethnic crew leaders becomes
crucial in finding employment, housing, and a variety of necessities.
However, strong ties to ethnic crew leaders may limit the development
of social connections to others, as indicated by a Mexican farmworker:
What we call crew leaders are the ones that look for and get the
jobs for us, find us a place to live, transportation. They are
Latinos like us. Many times they are from towns near where we
came from. (male worker, three years in the United States)
… The crew leader from where I come from (Florida) is my
brother-in-law. He said, ‘‘come with me,’’ so I thought, well,
why not? At least I will see that region. (male with two years in
the United States)
Well, to find jobs is not so hard around here. The crew leader is
the one that provides jobs. You see, the crew leaders are the
ones in charge of keeping order in the fields. Then one does
not have to deal with the American, nor does the American tell
you anything if you are doing something wrong. Or if you are
looking for a job, you don’t ask the American. You make
arrangements with the crew leader. It’s better if he is a
Mexican. But with the American, we don’t make any deals.
(male harvesting apples in New York, with family in Florida)
Crew leaders and other coethnics who link immigrants to labor markets
and other resources often have developed social ties beyond the
immediate network of coethnics. Their weak social ties to the wider
community serve as a resource to other coethnics. Sometimes these
individuals were pioneers settling in the area, as in the case of Miguel, a
Strong Ties, Weak Ties, and Latino Immigrant Employment —
Pfeffer and Parra
255
30-year-old male who came to work to the United States when he was 16.
He said that when he crossed the border he heard others talking about
the orchard jobs in New York, so he traveled with them and got his first
job. He liked the area and tried to stay, but in those days most workers
left when the harvest season ended. At that time most of the workers
were mainly Puerto Rican or Jamaican, and some Haitians, but there
were no Mexicans. He said:
I am a hard worker, and I guess the farmer liked me. I came
back two years in a row and then I met a Puerto Rican woman
who was living in the town close by and we started to live
together. I asked the farmer if he wanted help during the
winter, even if it was just part-time, and I stayed. Now I am in
charge of all the handwork on the farm. I also drive the trucks.
I do the hiring for the season and the farmer has given me a lot
of responsibility. These days most of the workers are Mexican. I
hire them if someone recommends them to me or if I know
them, but if I don’t know them, then even if they are Mexican I
would not hire them. I don’t want trouble. I tried to learn
English from the beginning and that really helped me when I
talked directly to the farmer, and not through the crew leader.
Now I am legal, because my ex-wife is a citizen, and we got the
papers. The farmer has helped me a lot: to get my car and my
driver’s license. He encouraged me to save, to open a bank
account. I live on the farm so I don’t have too many expenses. I
do like it here. I can’t complain.
This example shows that weak ties are needed to create opportunities
for immigrants, especially those who are among the first of their ethnic
group to arrive in a community. Once they establish a beachhead, they
serve as a resource to coethnics who follow them to the community.
They are able to capitalize on their weak ties to other community
members by playing an intermediary role for coethnics who lack these
weak social ties. Miguel acted as an intermediary between workers and
labor-market opportunities. Others who establish weak social ties in the
community also provide access to a variety of goods and services, as
illustrated by the following example.
Pedro, a man in his 40s and a store owner, came to the United States
about 20 years ago. He started as a farmworker, moving around the
United States, and later secured a stable job as a truck driver in New
York City and the Northeast. His wife joined him, and they have two
children. He was able to secure a permanent residency visa. His wife got
a job in a nursing home and she has worked there for 18 years. Once
settled in the rural community he tried to open a store to cater to the
256
Rural Sociology, Vol. 74, No. 2, June 2009
needs and food preferences of Latinos. At that point a larger number of
Mexican workers were working in the region, some of them settling in
the area. Through his wife’s job and the schools his children attended,
he started to have informal relationships with local (white) residents,
and he inquired about ways to open a store. He received help from a
county agency that helps people to open small businesses. The staff
helped him to understand the paperwork necessary to start the store.
The staff of this agency recommended another town, but because of his
experience as a farmworker and a driver he realized that the
community he lived in was better suited for his store. Even if many
farmworkers were in the area for only a few months, the numbers who
remained year-round helped make the store more profitable. He was
able to open his store for several reasons: (1) he got help from local
community members; (2) he had been in the United States for several
years; (3) he had a driver’s license; (4) he had established some creditworthiness; (5) he tried hard to learn English as soon as he arrived in the
United States; and (6) he became a legal resident. However, it took more
than 10 years to be able to start his business. Start-up funds for this
small business, as well as for others we observed, came from personal
savings and loans from family, friends, and coethnic entrepreneurs.
These sources of operating capital were essential because of limited
access to bank credit. Both Pedro and his wife, Inez, also held other
jobs until the business took hold. He has three vans that go to the
farm labor camps to sell produce to farmworkers. His store provides
wire services for cash transfers to Mexico and Central America,
interstate transportation, and transportation to regional airports.
Workers can cash their checks at no charge, and workers in the area
find the store a familiar place to stop and talk. Pedro and Inez make
conscious efforts to help the Mexican community and to provide
good products and cater to the taste of their clientele. One indicator
of their success in becoming integrated into life in the United States
is that their son is in college and their daughter is finishing high
school.
The case of Pedro and Inez also shows the importance of human
capital in facilitating integration into the social and economic life of the
community. Both have about 10 years of education completed in
Mexico, and since coming to the United States Inez like Pedro has
learned English, and Pedro has secured permanent residency visas for
his family as well as himself. They settled in the town and made attempts
to develop links with established community residents through their
jobs. They were active in the children’s schools and their ability to be
engaged was related to their English-language ability.
Strong Ties, Weak Ties, and Latino Immigrant Employment —
Pfeffer and Parra
257
The interconnection between human capital and the formation of
weak social ties is further illustrated in the following example, where,
again, coethnics with human capital to form weak ties establish a
foundation for other coethnics seeking to become integrated into the
life of the community. As a young girl Maria came to the United States
with her parents. Her parents settled in the area, became legal
residents, and left farmwork. She was able to go to high school and
graduate. After her graduation, her teachers encouraged her to attend
the local community college, and she started to work toward a paralegal
degree. She was able to work at the law office of a high school friend’s
father. That contact with the law office, she said, was very important
when she decided to open a small store in the area, where ‘‘before
there were no Mexicans, much less a Mexican store.’’ She knew where
to go for help to get her business off the ground. ‘‘The people in the
law office where very nice to me and they helped me a lot with the
paperwork needed to get the permits for the store, and they gave me
advice.’’ She recognized that because she attended school in the United
States she has had an advantage in dealing with agencies, vendors, and
so on. But to distribute her merchandise and get the goods to the store,
she relies in coethnics. For example, she wants to be the main
distributor of telephone cards in the area through her convenience
store. At the time of our interview, her assistant, a young Mexican male,
was getting ready to deliver phone cards to farm labor camps in the
area. But her interactions with coethnics were not limited to commerce.
She sometimes helps the store’s clientele with translations, and the
store has become a place for coethnics to socialize.
For Maria, weak ties have been important to establish herself as an
independent store owner. Her English skills and U.S. schooling allowed
her to establish links with members of the white community and to ask
them for help. Stores like Maria’s, owned by Mexicans, have become a
place where coethnics can socialize and get help to find their way while
living in the United States. Intermediaries like Maria offer resources
obtained through their weak ties, but by bringing coethnics together
they also provide a locus for the reinforcement of strong ties.
These examples show how weak ties created an opportunity for those
who could serve as an intermediary between coethnics and markets for
labor, goods, and services. But strong social ties can also create business
and other opportunities, especially when there is a rapidly growing and
more sizable community of coethnics. The growing numbers of
Mexicans settling in New York City and its periurban areas provided a
more extensive network of coethnics who provided information and
support to Jose and his family as they pursued various business
258
Rural Sociology, Vol. 74, No. 2, June 2009
opportunities. This family took advantage of the strong ties in the New
York/New Jersey metropolitan area to start businesses. Jose’s older
brother was the first to start a small supermarket in one rural town in
the region. Jose then used his sibling’s connections and work
experience to start his own restaurant there. He also was aware of the
growing population of Mexicans living in the town and working on the
nearby farms and packing plants. Both his business clientele and
workers came from the network of Mexican immigrants in the area.
Members of the extended family also worked for him and his brother.
In Jose’s case, settling and becoming integrated into the community
predominately relied on strong, not weak, ties and it was a successful
strategy. Once established, Jose was easily able to go about his business
because of his ability to speak English.
There is a question of whether or not strong ties benefit all involved.
In the last example, strong ties were the mechanism for these
businessmen to succeed. At the same time we heard how strong ties
curtailed opportunities for some members of Jose’s extended family. In
his brother’s supermarket, a middle-aged sister was in charge of the
cash register. She did not have a permanent residency visa as did her
two brothers. She came to the United States with the hope that in time
her brothers would be able to arrange a visa for her. She has been
working for them for four years, but she did not see any long-term gain
for her or her daughter. She was making just enough to live on. She
confided that the family pressured her to continue working at the
supermarket as a family duty, but she would like to get a job where she
could be better paid. She would like to start a business as her brothers
had done.
Our qualitative findings show that labor-market integration in the
rural communities in our study involves strong and weak social ties as
well as human capital. But specific combinations of these resources are
related to social stratification within the immigrant community. Those
with human-capital advantages are better able to form linkages with
established community members. The weak social ties they establish
allow these more advantaged immigrants to enter into businesses that
cater to coethnics. These coethnic transactions are often mutually
beneficial. Immigrant entrepreneurs have customers, and immigrants
with fewer human-capital endowments are able to draw on strong social
ties to more established coethnics to gain access to labor and other
markets.
Our qualitative observations are consistent with our survey data. Our
survey of immigrants who formerly worked as farmworkers shows that
self-employed immigrants were far more likely to have formed social
Strong Ties, Weak Ties, and Latino Immigrant Employment —
Pfeffer and Parra
259
relationships with established community members than those employed by others. More that one-half of the eleven self-employed
immigrants we interviewed had close white friends whose homes they
visited and whom they would call on in an emergency. Less than onethird of the other former farmworkers we surveyed had formed such
ties, but the employed were more likely than the unemployed to have
them, and those employed full-time were more likely than part-time
workers to have formed such social connections (see Table 2).
Consistent with our qualitative observations, the self-employed had
better human-capital endowments than others. As we indicated above,
those with more human capital were better able to establish weak social
ties to established community members. The self-employed had more
schooling than others, and this fact certainly indicated that they may
have had some of the skills necessary to learn the English language. The
self-employed were most likely to report that they spoke English well,
and least likely to report that they spoke no English at all. In the post 9/
11 era, immigration status has become a more important factor, and
those with valid immigration documents have more security and
opportunities. The self-employed were the least likely to have no
immigration documents and most likely to have become naturalized
citizens. But human capital did not create advantages in labor-market
opportunities for others. There are few differences in the humancapital endowments of others in the labor market. In other words,
whether the former farmworkers are employed full- or part-time does
not appear to be strongly related to their human-capital assets.
Human capital does appear, however, to play a role in how individuals
obtain employment. Immigrants living in rural communities who have
found nonfarm jobs most commonly find the work themselves. In fact,
nearly half of the employed persons we surveyed found work in this way
(see Table 3). Individuals who found work themselves completed more
years of schooling, were most likely to report that they spoke English
well, and were least likely to be without immigration documents. Those
who had relied on others to help them find a job had fewer humancapital assets. Better endowed persons who were able to find nonfarm
jobs themselves were also more likely to have developed social ties to
established members of the community. For example, those who found
a job themselves, like those who were self-employed, were most likely to
have a close white friend, visit that friend’s home, and be prepared to
call on that friend in an emergency. Nevertheless, almost half (see
Table 4) of those who had found work themselves reported that they
had no close white friends in the community. Overall, more than half of
immigrant former farmworkers in the communities we studied had no
260
Rural Sociology, Vol. 74, No. 2, June 2009
Table 2. Social and Human Capital and Other Selected Individual
Characteristics by Employment Status of Immigrant Latino Former
Farmworkers in Five New York Communities, 2003
Characteristic
Close white friends in
Community
Has close friends
(percent of N)
Visits friends’ homes
(percent of N)a
Calls friends in
emergency
(percent of N)b
No close friends
(percent of N)
Years of school
completed (mean)
Ability to speak English
A little (percent of N)
More or less (percent
of N)
Well ( percent of N)
Not at all ( percent
of N)
Immigration status
Green card or work
permit (percent of N)
Naturalized citizen
(percent of N)
No documentation
(percent of N)
Refused (percent of N)
Unemployed
Employed
Part-Time
Employed
SelfChiFull-Time Employed square/F
4.5
10.0
7.8
9.1
4.5
10.0
13.9
18.2
21.2
20.0
30.7
54.5
69.8
60.0
47.6
18.2
8.7
8.2
8.5
11.8
2.8*
d.f. 5 3
40.9
13.6
42.0
10.0
47.0
18.7
45.5
9.0
15.4
d.f. 5 9
22.7
22.8
12.0
36.0
12.7
21.6
27.3
18.2
31.8
42.0
40.4
27.3
6.1
6.0
6.6
36.4
47.0
44.0
44.0
27.3
15.1
8.0
9.0
9.0
Male (percent of N)
65.2
66.0
54.8
54.5
Mexican (percent of N)
72.7
80.0
75.3
53.5
Age (mean)
34.7
31.9
33.1
39.8
8.3
5.3
6.1
14.4
Years lived in U.S.
community of
residence (mean)
66
N
a
50
166
11
18.2*
d.f. 5 9
22.3*
d.f. 5 12
2.9
d.f.53
3.2
d.f. 5 3
3.6**
d.f. 5 3
12.3***
d.f. 5 3
–
Has close white friends and visits white friends’ homes.
b
Has close white friends, visits white friends’ homes, and calls on white friends in
emergencies.
*p , .05, **p , .01, ***p , .001
Strong Ties, Weak Ties, and Latino Immigrant Employment —
Pfeffer and Parra
261
Table 3. Source of Assistance in Finding Employment and Human
Capital Endowments of Employed Immigrant Latino Former Farmworkers in Five New York Communities, 2003
Source of Assistance
Mean
Percent Years of
of N
Schooling
None; found job themselves 45.0
Family or close friend
15.6
Employer
9.6
Other
29.8
All respondents
100.0
F/Chi-square
—
d.f.
9.3
7.7
8.5
7.6
8.5
6.6*
3
Percent Who Speak
Percent with No
English
Immigration
Not at All
Well
Documents
6.3
48.2
51.9
41.7
24.6
79.7*
9
29.9
1.7
0.0
2.4
14.9
41.0
66.1
90.9
77.9
50.8
25.7*
3
Notes: N 5 282. The table excludes self-employed persons.
*p , .001.
close white friends in the community. These observations indicate a
fairly high level of social isolation among immigrants who had obtained
nonfarm work.
We assessed the relative importance of human capital and social ties
to white community members in determining the source of assistance
in finding a job by fitting a multinomial logit model. The model
predicts the likelihood that individuals seek employment themselves, or
get assistance from family members or close friends, their employer, or
others. The predictors in our model were years of education,
immigration status, English-language ability, and friendships with white
Table 4. Source of Assistance in Finding Employment by Nature of
Friendships with White Community Members of Employed Immigrant
Latino Former Farmworkers in Five New York Communities, 2003
White Friends in Community
Source of
Assistance
None; found job
themselves
Family or close
friend
Employer
Other
All respondents
Has Close Visits Friends’ Call on Friends
Friends
Homesa
in Emergenciesb
No Close Total
Friends Percent N
3.9
11.0
39.4
45.7
100
127
3.5
15.5
20.7
60.3
100
44
7.4
4.8
7.4
14.8
11.9
11.0
33.3
23.8
26.6
44.4
59.5
55.0
100
100
100
27
84
282
Notes: The table excludes self-employed persons.
Has close white friends and visits white friends’ homes.
b
Has close white friends, visits white friends’ homes, and calls on white friends in
emergencies.
Chi-square 5 41.4, p , .001, d.f. 5 9.
a
262
Rural Sociology, Vol. 74, No. 2, June 2009
Table 5. Results of Multinomial Logistic Regression Predicting Source
of Assistance in Finding Employment in Five New York Communities,
2003
Source of Assistancea
Family or close friend
Intercept
Year of education
Undocumentedb
Speaks no Englishc
No close white friendsd
Employer
Intercept
Years of education
Undocumentedb
Speaks no Englishc
No close white friendsd
Other
Intercept
Years of education
Undocumentedb
Speaks no Englishc
No close white friendsd
Parameter Estimate
Standard Error
22.5
20.1
0.5
4.5
21.8
1.2*
0.1
0.4
1.2***
0.5
222.7
0.1
2.6
22.1
21.9
1.3***
0.1
0.8**
1.0***
.7**
23.0
2.034
2.6
3.9
1.4
1.1**
0.1
0.4
1.0*
0.6**
Notes: Model Chi-square 5 136.1, 24 d.f., p , .000; Factor Chi-squares: years of
education 5 4.4, d.f. 3, p 5.2; immigration status 5 23.8, d.f. 3, p , .000; English ability 5
50.4, d.f. 9, p , .000; close white friends 5 35.2, d.f. 9, p , .000. Pseudo R-square (Cox
and Snell) 5 .433. N 5 282.
a
The reference category is individuals who found jobs themselves.
b
Compared with individuals who have a green card, have other work permit, or are
naturalized citizens.
c
Compared with individuals who speak English very well.
d
Compared with individuals who have very close white friends (visit the white friend’s
home and calls on them in emergencies).
*p , .05, **p , .01, ***p , .001.
residents. Of these independent variables, only years of education was
not a significant predictor of the source of assistance in getting a job.
This result is not surprising since education levels for this sample of
Latino immigrants was fairly low and probably not a consideration in
informal job referrals made by family, friends, or employers. English
ability had a clear effect on the source of assistance in getting a job. As
indicated in Table 5, those who reported that they speak no English
were less self-reliant in finding a job (the model’s reference category for
the outcome) and significantly more likely to rely on either family or
close friends, employers, or others for assistance in finding employment
compared to those who speak English well (the reference category for
this predictor). This result is to be expected in a setting where there are
relatively few coethnics concentrated in nonfarm occupations. Those
who are unable to communicate in English simply need an interme-
Strong Ties, Weak Ties, and Latino Immigrant Employment —
Pfeffer and Parra
263
diary to approach employers about employment. English-language
ability was the only predictor affecting the likelihood that individuals
would seek family or close friends’ assistance in finding a job rather
than find one on their own.
In contrast, several variables were related to the likelihood that
individuals would rely on their employer rather than be self-reliant in
finding a job. As can be seen in Table 5, the parameter estimates for
immigration status (i.e. undocumented) and white friends were
statistically significant as well as the estimate for English-language
ability. Those without immigration documents are more likely to rely
on their employer to find a job compared with those who have
documents (the reference category for this predictor). The parameter
estimate comparing those with no white friends to those who have such
friends whom they would call on in an emergency is counterintuitive.
Those with no close friends are less likely to rely on their employer than
to be self-reliant. This finding reflects the fact that many employees
form close friendships with their employers. Often these relationships
are quite paternalistic, with the employer helping the employees meet a
variety of needs. In other words, the employer and the close white
friend is often the same person. Those who do not consider the
employer a close friend are less likely to use the employer as a resource
in finding another job. These findings indicate that those who speak no
English and are undocumented are more dependent on their employer
for both friendship and finding employment.
The distinctiveness of this employee/employer relationship is driven
home by the parameter estimate for those with close white friends
turning to others (i.e., not family, friends, or employers) for assistance
in finding a job. Those with no white friends are more likely than those
with white friends they would call on in an emergency to seek assistance
from others in finding a job. This residual category of others includes
agency personnel and townspeople with whom no close friendship
exists. In the absence of close white friends, the immigrants seek help
through more formal channels like agencies that are charged with
providing such assistance.
These results indicate that those with better human-capital endowments are more self-reliant in finding employment and less in need of
relationships with the white community in securing employment. This
self-reliance translates into higher incomes, and this relationship is
apparent in comparing the family incomes of individuals who received
different forms of assistance in finding employment. Individuals who
were self-reliant in finding employment had higher family incomes
than those who found employment in any other way. As indicated in
264
Rural Sociology, Vol. 74, No. 2, June 2009
Table 6. Ordinary Least Squares Regression Models Predicting Family
Income in Five New York Communities, 2003
Model 1
Variable
b
Standard
Error
Model 2
b
Standard
Error
Model 3
b
Standard
Error
Family or friend helpeda
29,794 1,699*** 28,787 1,709*** 27,163 1,701***
211,040 2,091*** 210,455 2,159*** 29,010 2,226***
Employer helpeda
28,235 1,538*** 27,716 1,577*** 26,514 1,573***
Others helpeda
Years of education
496 183**
514
176**
2923 1,355
318 1,366
Undocumentedb
23,877 1,385** 23,195 1,326*
Speaks no Englishc
132 1,472
55 1,496
No close white friendsd
e
820 2,196
Married
Age
263
79***
22,651 1215*
Femalef
2410 1,720
Spouse and/or children in
United Statesg
Number of family members
190
69**
in United States
Constant
24,894 898
21,957 2,466*** 12,892 3,781***
R-squared
.23
.32
.40
F
19.7***
8.9***
8.2***
d.f.
3
10
15
Note: N 5 282
a
Compared with individuals who found work themselves.
b
Compared with individuals who have a green card, other work permit, or are
naturalized citizens.
c
Compared with individuals who speak English very well.
d
Compared with individuals who have very close white friends (visit the white friend’s
home and calls on them in emergencies).
e
Compared with individuals who are not married.
f
Compared with males.
*p , .05, **p , .01, ***p , .001.
Table 6, these differences remain sizable and statistically significant
even after controlling for the human-capital variables considered above,
social relationships with white community members, and other factors
affecting family incomes like the number of family members in the
United States who may be contributing to family income. In other
words, the way individuals obtain employment has an independent
effect on income. The way individuals found employment accounted
for more than 20 percent of the variance in family income, more than
all the other variables in the model considered together. The only other
variables included in the model that had a statistically significant effect
on income levels were years of education, English-language ability, age,
gender, and number of family members who might be contributing to
family income. None of these factors had as large an impact on family
income as the way the individual obtained employment. For example,
Strong Ties, Weak Ties, and Latino Immigrant Employment —
Pfeffer and Parra
265
persons two standard deviations above the mean level of education
would earn only about $3,000 more per year than those with average
education levels. The effects of age and number of family members in
the United States were similar to years of education. Women earned
about $2,600 per year less than males. Even after we controlled for all
the other variables in the model, compared with individuals who relied
on the assistance of others to find work, those who found employment
themselves had an advantage of between $6,500 and $7,100 annually.
The observant reader will note that a much better indicator would be
individual income since our focus is on individual characteristics.
Unfortunately, our data do not include a measure of individual income.
For this reason we have controlled for the number of family members
in the United States, and this variable does have an effect on family
income levels. Although family income is not the perfect indicator, its
results are strong and consistent. Furthermore these observations in
five rural communities in upstate New York are consistent with earlier
studies that suggested that immigrants earn better incomes in more
‘‘open’’ labor markets where individuals more freely seek out the best
employment options available to them.
Conclusions
Sociologists have debated the relative importance of social ties in the
economic success of immigrants. While previous studies of ethnic
enclaves posed some interesting questions, most only provided
suggestive findings because their analyses had no direct measures of
social ties. Furthermore, the studies centered on large metropolitan
areas with more labor-market opportunities and potentially greater
access to social resources provided by coethnics compared with rural
areas with a recent history of Latino immigrant settlement.
As mentioned above, throughout the United States, Latino farmworkers are bringing their families and increasingly settling in rural
communities. The transition from migrant to immigrant poses
pronounced challenges in rural communities with small Latino
populations. Furthermore, social-network resources that served the
Latinos so well in their lives as migrant workers might not be useful
social capital in this new setting. In considering the needs of
immigrants in becoming established residents, we sought to understand
the importance of social ties and human capital to immigrants seeking
nonfarm employment.
Our observations show that strong social ties, weak ties, and human
capital all play a role in the integration of immigrants into the local
266
Rural Sociology, Vol. 74, No. 2, June 2009
economy, but they play different roles depending on the human-capital
endowments of individuals. We examined human capital in schooling
completed, English-language ability, and immigration status, all
important considerations in gaining access to labor markets. Differences in human-capital endowments establish the social-class stratification within this immigrant community. A small group of the best
endowed are most prepared to form weak social ties that enable them
to take advantage of business opportunities catering to the growing
population of immigrants, mostly fellow Mexicans. The self-employed
draw on strong social ties to attract customers, but they also provide
coethnics access to certain market opportunities. However, as indicated
in both our qualitative observations and our survey data, reliance on
strong social ties to find employment does not necessarily lead to the
best employment opportunities. The most common way that immigrants find work is on their own, and those who find it this way are more
likely to get better jobs. But immigrants who have more schooling, are
able to speak English, and have immigration documents are also more
likely to find better employment. They are also better able to develop
ties to established community members whom they can draw on for
information and advice as they seek employment.
Our interest in this article is to examine how immigrants in rural
communities are integrated into nonfarm labor markets. This topic has
been of growing concern as an increasing number of immigrants have
settled in rural communities throughout the United States Many of the
new immigrant destinations have had few immigrants in recent decades
and almost no experience with Latinos living in their communities. The
Latino, mostly Mexican, immigrants initially arriving in these communities found relatively few coethnics. They often have strong social ties
to the few coethnics already residing in the community, but these family
members and friends often have few social ties that would link them to
labor markets outside of agriculture. Given this social isolation,
immigrants seeking steadier and better paying employment in nonfarm
jobs must strike out on their own. Our study shows that those who are
able to speak English and have immigration papers have a distinct
advantage in securing nonfarm employment.
These observations are of some practical significance for rural
communities. While much attention has focused on national policy
debates, the actual impacts of immigration are experienced locally, and
communities around the nation have reacted in diverse ways. In recent
years there have been reports of communities like Hazelton, PA,
enacting local ordinances to keep unauthorized immigrants from
settling in their communities. In contrast, New Haven, CT, was recently
Strong Ties, Weak Ties, and Latino Immigrant Employment —
Pfeffer and Parra
267
in the news when it made efforts to provide official identification to
unauthorized immigrants living in the community (Pfeffer 2008).
Certainly immigrants are more likely to be welcomed as an asset to
rural communities if they become economically active. Rural communities can work to ensure positive results from immigrant growth by
supporting English-language training. Language acquisition is key and
is likely to have positive results within a short time. Rural communities
also have a stake in immigration policy. Community organizations,
employers, and employees are insecure when a large number of
undocumented individuals live in the community and are subject to
apprehension by federal authorities. Rural communities can assure that
immigrant residents have access to legal assistance to obtain valid
immigration documents. The options available to immigrants and the
sorts of legal assistance they most need, of course, will depend on what
specific federal immigration-policy reforms are adopted.
References
Aguilera, M.B. 2005. ‘‘The Impact of Social Capital on the Earnings of Puerto Rican
Migrants.’’ Sociological Quarterly 46:569–92.
Aguilera, M.B. and D.S. Massey. 2003. ‘‘Social Capital and the Wages of Mexican Migrants:
New Hypotheses and Tests.’’ Social Forces 82(2):671–701.
Bonacich, E. and J. Modell. 1980. The Economic Basis of Ethnic Solidarity: Small Business in the
Japanese American Community. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bordieu, P. 1986. ‘‘The Forms of Capital.’’ Pp. 241–58 in Handbook of Theory and Research
for the Sociology of Education, edited by J.D. Richardson. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press.
Burt, R.S. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
———. 2001. ‘‘Structural Holes versus Network Closure as Social Capital.’’ Pp. 31–56 in
Social Capital: Theory and Research, edited by N. Lin, K. Cook, and R.S. Burt. New York:
Aldine de Gruyer.
Cerrutti, M. and D. Massey. 2001. ‘‘On the Auspices of Female Migration from Mexico to
the United States.’’ Demography 38:187–200.
Chavez, L.R. 1988. ‘‘Settlers and Sojourners: The Case of Mexicans in the United States.’’
Human Organization 47(2):95–108.
Crowley, M., D.T. Lichter, and Z. Qian. 2006. ‘‘Beyond Gateway Cities: Economic
Restructuring and Poverty among Mexican Immigrant Families and Children.’’ Family
Relations 55:345–60.
Depalma, A. 2000. ‘‘A Tyrannical Situation: Farmers Caught in Conflict over Illegal
Migrant Workers.’’ New York Times. October 3, B1.
Durand, J. and D.S. Massey. 2004. ‘‘What We Learned from the Mexican Migration
Project.’’ Pp. 1–16 in Crossing the Border: Research from the Mexican Migration Project,
edited by J. Durand and D.S. Massey. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Fix, M.E. and J.S. Passel. 2001. U.S. Immigration at the Beginning of the Twenty-first Century.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Foner, N. 2001. ‘‘Introduction: New Immigrants in a New York.’’ Pp. 1–32 in New
Immigrants in New York, edited by N. Foner. New York: Columbia University Press.
Glazer, N. and D.P. Moynihan. 1970. Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Rican, Jews
Italian, and Irish of New York City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
268
Rural Sociology, Vol. 74, No. 2, June 2009
Granovetter, M.S. 1973. ‘‘The Strength of Weak Ties.’’ American Journal of Sociology
78:1360–80.
———. 1974. Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
———. 1983. ‘‘The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited.’’ Sociological
Theory 1:201–33.
Griffith, D., E. Kissam, J. Camoseco, A. Garcia, M. Pfeffer, D. Runsten, and M. Valdez
Pisonia. 1995. Working Poor: Farmworkers in the United States. Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.
Gurak, D.T. and F. Caces. 1992. ‘‘Migration Networks and the Shaping of Migration
Systems.’’ Pp. 150–176 in International Migration Systems, edited by M. Kritz, L.L. Lim,
and H. Slotnik. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
Jensen, L. 2006. New Immigrant Settlements in Rural America: Problems, Prospects, and Policies.
Durham, NH: Carsey Institute.
Kandel, W. and L. Cromartie. 2004. New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Research Report, No. 99, May.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Kritz, M.M. and D.T. Gurak. 2004. Immigration and a Changing America. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation; Washington: Population Reference Bureau.
Lichter, D.T. and K.M. Johnson. 2006. ‘‘Emerging Rural Settlement Patterns and the
Geographic Redistibution of America’s New Immigrants.’’ Rural Sociology
71(1):109–32.
Lieberson, S. 1980. A Piece of the Pie: Blacks and White Immigrants Since 1880. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Lin, N. 2001. Social Capital. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, P., M. Fix, and J.E. Taylor. 2006. The New Rural Poverty: Agriculture and Immigration
in California. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Massey, D.S. 1999. ‘‘Why Does Immigration Occur? A Theoretical Synthesis.’’ Pp. 34–52 in
The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience, edited by C.
Hirschman, J. Dewind, and P. Kazinitz. New York: Russell Sage.
Massey, D.S., R. Alarcon, J. Durand, and H. Gonzalez. 1987. Return to Aztlan: The Social
Processes of International Migration from Western Mexico. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Mexican Migration Project. 2008. PERS118 Date File. Office of Population Research,
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.
Murphy, A.D., C. Blanchard, and J.A. Hill. 2001. Latino Workers in the Contemporary South.
Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Nee, V. and J. Sanders. 2001. ‘‘Understanding the Diversity of Immigrant Incorporation: A
Forms-of-Capital Model.’’ Ethnic and Racial Studies 24(3):386–411.
Nee, V., J.M. Sanders, and S. Sernau. 1994. ‘‘Job Transitions in an Immigrant Metropolis:
Ethnic Boundaries and the Mixed Economy.’’ American Sociological Review
59(6):849–72.
Parra, P.A. 1984. ‘‘United Migrant Opportunity Services, Inc.: An Historical and
Organizational Analysis of Changing Goals.’’ MS thesis, Department of Sociology,
University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Parra, P.A. and M.J. Pfeffer. 2006. ‘‘New Immigrants in Rural Communities: The
Challenges of Integration.’’ Social Text 24(88):81–98.
Passel, J.S. 2006. The Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S.:
Estimates Based on the March 2005 Current Population Survey. Washington, DC: Pew
Hispanic Center. (Also available at http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/61.pdf.)
Pfeffer, M.J. 1997. ‘‘‘‘Welfare versus Work in the Ethnic Transformation of a Philadelphia
Labor Market.’’ Social Science Quarterly 78(2):452–70.
———. 2000. ‘‘Class, Ethnicity and Marginal Employment: African-American and
Cambodian Day-Haul Farm Workers in Philadelphia.’’ Research in the Sociology of
Work 9:73–93.
Strong Ties, Weak Ties, and Latino Immigrant Employment —
Pfeffer and Parra
269
———. 2008. ‘‘The Underpinnings of Immigration and the Limits of Immigration
Policy.’’ Cornell International Law Journal 41(1):83–100.
Pfeffer, M.J. and P.A. Parra. 2004. Immigrants and the Community. Development Sociology
Department, Cornell University: Ithaca, NY. (Available at http://devsoc.cals.cornell/
cals/devsoc/outreach/cardi/publications/rpb-past-issues.cfm.)
———. 2005. Immigrants and the Community: Farmworkers with Families. Development
Sociology Department, Cornell University: Ithaca, NY. (Available at http:// devsoc.
cals.cornell/cals/devsoc/outreach/cardi/publications/rpb-past-issues.cfm.)
Portes, A. 1995. ‘‘Economic Sociology and the Sociology of Immigration: A Conceptual
Overview.’’ Pp. 1–41 in The Economic Sociology of Immigration: Essays on Networks,
Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship, edited by A. Portes. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
———. 1998. ‘‘Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology.’’ Annual
Review of Sociology 24:1–12.
Portes, A. and L. Jensen. 1989. ‘‘The Enclave and the Entrants: Patterns of Ethnic
Enterprise in Miami before and after Mariel.’’ American Sociological Review
54(6):929–49.
Portes, A. and R.D. Manning. 1986. ‘‘The Immigrant Enclave: Theory and Empirical
Examples.’’ Pp. 47–68 in Competitive Ethnic Relations, edited by S. Olzak and J. Nagel.
New York: Academic Press.
Portes, A. and S. Shafer. 2007. ‘‘Revisiting the Enclave Hypothesis: Twenty-Five Years
Later.’’ Pp. 157–90 in The Sociology of Entrpreneurship, edited by M. Reuff and M.
Lounsbury. Oxford, England: Elsevier.
Portes, A. and R.G. Rumbaut. 2001. Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Portes, A. and M. Zhou. 1996. ‘‘Self-Employment and the Earnings of Immigrants.’’
American Sociological Review 61:219–30.
Riosmena, F. 2004. ‘‘Return versus Settlement among Undocumented Mexican Migrants,
1980–1996.’’ Pp. 265–81 in Crossing the Border: Research from the Mexican Migration
Project, edited by J. Durand and D.S. Massey. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Sanders, J.M. and V. Nee. 1987. ‘‘Limits of Ethnic Solidarity in the Enclave Economy.’’
American Sociological Review 52:745–73.
———. 1996. ‘‘Immigrant Self-employment: The Family as Social Capital and the Value of
Human Capital.’’ American Sociological Review 61:231–49.
Sanders, J., V. Nee, and S. Sernau. 2002. ‘‘Asian Immigrants’ Reliance on Social Ties in a
Multiethnic Labor Market.’’ Social Forces 81(1):281–314.
Smith, R.C. 2001. ‘‘Mexicans: Social, Educational, Economic, and Political Problems and
Prospects in New York.’’ Pp. 275–300 in New Immigrants in New York, edited by N.
Foner. New York: Columbia University Press.
Uzzi, B. 1999. ‘‘Embeddedness in the Making of Financial Capital: How Social Relations
and Networks Benefit Firms Seeking Financing.’’ American Sociological Review
64:481–505.
Waldinger, R. 1995. ‘‘The ‘Other Side’ of Embeddedness: A Case Study of the Interplay
between Economy and Ethnicity.’’ Ethnic and Racial Studies 18:555–80.
Waldinger, R. and M.I. Lichter. 2003. How the Other Half Works: Immigration and Social
Organization of Labor. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Wilson, T.D. 1998. ‘‘Weak Ties, Strong Ties: Network Principles in Mexican Migration.’’
Human Organization 57(4):394–403.
Wilson, W.J. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, The Underclass and Public Policy.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, K.L. and A. Portes. 1980. ‘‘Immigrant Enclaves: An Analysis of the Labor Market
Experiences of Cubans in Miami.’’ American Journal of Sociology 86(2):295–318.
Zhou, M. and J.R. Logan. 1989. ‘‘Returns on Human Capital in Ethnic Enclaves: New York
City’s Chinatown.’’ American Sociological Review 54(5):809–20.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.