the political participation ofthe political participation of puerto ricans in new york city carlos...
TRANSCRIPT
Centro Journal
ISSN: 1538-6279
The City University of New York
Estados Unidos
Vargas Ramos, Carlos
The Political Participation of Puerto Ricans in New York City
Centro Journal, vol. XV, núm. 1, spring, 2003, pp. 40-71
The City University of New York
New York, Estados Unidos
Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=37715103
How to cite
Complete issue
More information about this article
Journal's homepage in redalyc.org
Scientific Information System
Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal
Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative
CE
NT
RO
Journal
7V
olume xv
Num
ber 1spring 2003
[ 41]
The Po
litical Participatio
n o
f Pu
erto R
icans in
New
Yo
rk City
Carlos Vargas-R
amos
This w
ork presents results of a survey, conducted in New
York City
in 1997, comparing the political participation of Puerto R
icans with
that of other Latinos and other city residents, and analyzing thefactors that m
ake Latinos in general and Puerto Ricans in particular
relatively less likely to engage in political activities. The em
phasis onthe participation of Latinos in N
ew York C
ity, and highlighting oneparticular Latino group, results from
the desire to move aw
ay fromnation-w
ide survey research that tends to overlook local nuances and understudy subgroups. Latinos participate less in politics thando other groups in N
ew York C
ity, and while they m
ay exhibitsocioeconom
ic and demographic characteristics that m
ake them
less likely to participate, there are factors that affects their social and political capital that largely account for their reduced engagem
ent.[K
eywords: political participation, Puerto R
icans, Latinos, voting,politics, N
ew York C
ity]
AB
ST
RA
CT
Top: Protest for Better Education.“Puerto R
icans protesting in front of City H
all, New
York City (1963).”
Photographer Luis R. D
íaz. The R
ecords of the Offices of the G
overnment of Puerto R
ico in the U.S. Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños,
Hunter C
ollege, CU
NY.
Bottom: Learning to Vote.
“Ayoung w
oman learning how
to use a voting machine at the Voters R
egistration Activities at El Barrio C
ountry Fair (September 1990).
This w
as part of the Atrévete voter registration program
.”Photographer D
oel Vázquez. T
he Records of the O
ffices of the Governm
ent of Puerto Rico in the U.S. C
entro de Estudios Puertorriqueños,H
unter College, C
UN
Y.
LAT
INO
S A
ND
PO
LITIC
AL PA
RT
ICIPA
TIO
N
Po
litical P
articip
atio
n1
What is the extent of Latino political participation in the U
nited States? In what activities
do Hispanics participate? H
ow do Latinos com
pare to others in the United States?
How
do different Hispanic groups com
pare to each other in political involvement?
Research show
s that while voting is the m
ost comm
on form of participation am
ongH
ispanics, as it is for other people in the United States (G
arcia 1997; Verba et al. 1995;R
osenstone and Hansen 1993; de la G
arza et al. 1992; Leighly 2001; Nelson 1979),
their reported turnout rate is much low
er than for non-Hispanic w
hites and blacks(T
he Washington Post et al. 2000; D
ay and Gaither 2000). 2C
oinciding with findings
of others, Verba, Schlozman, and B
rady (1995) show that contacting elected officials
is the second most com
mon political activity Latinos engage in, but also at low
errates than seen in other groups in the country. Participating in inform
al comm
unityactivity is the third m
ost comm
on form of participation for Latinos, instead of
contributingm
oney to a political campaign or candidate, the third m
ost comm
onform
for non-Hispanic blacks and w
hites. Contributing m
oney ranks fourth in theLatino repertoire of political activities Verba and his colleagues surveyed, follow
ed by general cam
paign work on the behalf of a political candidate or party. Protest
activity and mem
bership in a local school or zoning board are the forms of
participationin w
hich Latinos engage the least—as in the case w
ith other groups.U
nlike other forms of participation, Latinos are on par w
ith other groups inm
embership on local boards.
What explains these results? Scholars have offered a variety of explanations to
account for the lower level of political participation am
ong Latinos, including thefollow
ing: the language barrier (Calvo and R
osenstone 1989; Conw
ay 1991;R
osenstone and Hansen 1993; Verba et al. 1993; G
arcia 1997); the youthfulness ofH
ispanics (Calvo and R
osenstone 1989; Conw
ay 1991; Garcia 1997); low
er levels ofeducational attainm
ent (Conw
ay 1991); lower incom
e levels and free time to devote
to political activities (Verba et al. 1993); lower levels of associational m
embership
and involvement (Verba et al. 1993; D
iaz 1996; Garcia 1997); low
er levels of exposureto skill—
acquiring and skill—exercising activities useful in politics (Verba et al. 1993);
greater mem
bership in the Catholic C
hurch (Verba et al. 1993; Verba et al. 1995);low
er levels of exposure to mobilizational appeals to political activities (Verba et al.
1995); lower rates of citizenship and naturalization (R
osenstone and Hansen 1993);
shorter length of residency in the country (Rosenstone and H
ansen 1993); and barriers to participation (e.g., literacy requirem
ents, poll taxes, intimidation),
among others (C
alvo and Rosenstone 1989; R
osenstone and Hansen 1993).
The predom
inant explanation for political participation in the political scienceliterature—
the standard socioeconomic status (SE
S) model (Lipset 1960; Verba and
Nie 1972)—
has shown em
pirically how higher levels of participation are strongly
and positively correlated with higher levels of education, incom
e, and occupation(C
onway 1991). R
ecent scholarly refinements of the SE
S model accentuate how
associational involvement and education foster higher levels of participation
(Verba et al. 1995; Nie et al. 1996). Involvem
ent in political activity, they assert, is affected by the skills and the resources people have at their disposal, how
psychologically in tune they may be w
ith political affairs and the system
that encompasses them
, and how people are asked to participate and becom
einvolved in politics. E
ducation and income afford individuals the resources of tim
e,
[ 43]
Over the past fifteen years there has been an increase in scholarly w
ork focusing on the political behavior of Latinos in the U
nited States (Leighly 2001; Hritzuk
and Park 2000; Verba et al. 1995; Rosenstone and H
ansen 1993; de la Garza et al. 1992).
While this scholarly production has given us a broad im
age of Latino political participationin the U
nited States, the image still needs to com
e into sharper focus. Attention to the
participation of different Latino subgroups, especially the smaller groups, is necessary.
When analysts speak of Latino participation, they refer to the average
participation that results from aggregating inform
ation provided by individuals of H
ispanic origin that happen to fall within the sam
pling frame, w
ithout regardto the notable differences that exists am
ong the different Latino groups (Arvizu and
Garcia 1996). A
t the national level, and even at the regional level, the nuances ofpolitical behavior am
ong people who are of different Latino subgroups are lost.
There are, additionally, historical and political reasons w
hy some Latino groups receive
more attention than others in the analysis of political behavior. Latinos of M
exicandescent, for exam
ple, are not only the largest but also the oldest Latino group and com
munity in the U
nited States. Furthermore, their presence in specific
regions of the country is intricately tied to the long-term history of those
regions. Cubans have also received a fairly sizable share of attention of the
scholarly literature on Latino politics, largely because of the peculiarities of theC
old War in the dom
estic affairs of the United States and the role they have
played in Cold W
ar politics.O
ther Latinos of Caribbean, C
entral, or South Am
erican descent, however,
have received far less particularized attention, if any, insofar as politics is concerned(H
ardy-Fanta 1993; Jones-Correa 1998; G
eorges 1989). This is m
ost likely the resultof their sm
aller group size relative to other Latino groups, as well as their
geographical dispersion, which com
pounds the size effect. In addition, their lower
social class background, racial composition, specific incorporation into the labor
sector, and settlement patterns have contributed to the sm
all amount of attention
their political participation has received. It should also be recognized that thesefactors partially explain their generally low
er level of participation in politics inthe U
nited States.In w
hat follows, I provide an overview
of what w
e know about Latino political
behavior. I present a brief account of theories that have explained politicalparticipation in general and Latino participation in particular. T
he focus is toexplore and test beyond socioeconom
ic status (SES) explanations that have
dominated the political participation literature over the past thirty years.
In particular, I am interested in investigating the im
pact associational mem
bershiphas had on participation. Finally, I provide evidence of participation am
ong PuertoR
icans and other Latinos in New
York City in order to ascertain how
they stand inrelation to other groups and highlight sim
ilarities and differences in the factors that affect their participation. Follow
ing national trends, I do expect Latinos in N
ew York C
ity, including Puerto Ricans, to exhibit low
er levels of politicalengagem
ent overall relative to the rest of the city’s population. How
ever, congruentw
ith other research, I also expect Latinos to outperform the m
ajority population inseveral non-voting activities. U
nlike previous research, I do not expect socioeconomic
variables to be the primary explanatory factors of participation am
ong Latinos.Instead, it is those factors that provide political actors w
ith politically relevantcapital, w
hether social or strictly political, that account for most of the effect
on the participation of the population at large and Latinos in particular.
[ 42]
money, and “civic skills” (i.e., com
munication and organizational abilities) that are
conducive to participation. Higher educational attainm
ent has a positive impact
on a person’s earnings, and more form
al education imbues an individual w
ithlanguage and com
munication skills. M
oreover, higher earnings show a positive
relationship with m
embership in social organizations, w
here individuals acquire,develop, and/or put into practice com
munication and organizational skills that
become useful and are transferable to political activity.
Scholars framing the participation argum
ent along these lines would then
expect Latinos to be relatively less likely to participate than others in the United
States, since Latinos as a group exhibit lower incom
e levels, lower educational
attainment, higher rates of participation in the service econom
y and placement
in unskilled or semiskilled occupations, higher unem
ployment rates, and higher
rates of poverty than the country’s majority population (i.e., non-H
ispanic whites)
and some other m
inority groups (e.g., Asian-A
mericans) (T
herrien and Ram
irez2001). M
oreover, Latinos would be less likely to have had the tim
e or money
or to have developed the comm
unication and organizational skills that result in actual and effective political activity; and, as a group that is less likely to joinsocial or civic organization in com
parison with other ethnic or racial groups
(i.e. African A
mericans), Latinos w
ould also miss the opportunity to occupy
an environment w
here they might be able to develop or enhance “civic skills”
that overcome or com
pensate for their lower incom
e or educational attainment.
Following this argum
ent, it seems that Latinos find them
selves in a vicious circleas the com
pounding advantages to participation provided by highersocioeconom
ic status elude them.
Other m
odels of political involvement have attributed the dw
indlinginvolvem
ent in politics generally noted in the United States to the steady
erosion of a sense of comm
unity generated and reinforced by associationalactivity (P
utnam 2000). T
he diminishing social capital(i.e. social netw
orks,trustw
orthiness,and norms of reciprocity) across com
munities has had negative
consequences on the nature of civic relations and civic responsibilities, w
hich in turn have turned people away from
one another and the political sphere.A
s peoplebecom
e socially disengaged, their involvement in politics declines
as well. R
efinements to these “associationist” approaches highlight the political
features that mem
bership in associations provides. How
ever, more than the social
capital that belonging to an association may afford, or the ability to develop,
put into practice, or sharpen politically relevant organizational and associationalskills, it is the political capitalthat gives a boost to an individual’s involvem
ent in politics—
particularlyin “poor urban ethnic com
munities” (Fuchs et al. 2000).
As Fuchs and her colleagues explain,
individuals who join social organizations are not particularly
interested in engaging directly in politics, and that the norms they
are learning do not particularly relate to adversarial forms of political
participation […] If organizational involvem
ent is to lead to politicalparticipation, the organization m
ust have an explicit political agendathat allow
s its mem
bers to move beyond participation in the
ordinary functions of the organization to expressly confrontcontentious and interest-based social and political issues (2001: 305).
Dem
ographic factors such as age and gender also affect political participation.W
omen generally tend to be less involved in politics than m
en (Conw
ay 1991; B
urns et al. 2001), although there may be instances w
here gender is not a factor that explains differential outcom
es in participation (Calvo and R
osenstone 1989). A
ge, on the other hand, is a factor that affects Latinos in particular, because of theoverrepresentation of Latinos in the younger cohorts of the population (G
arcia 1997).T
hirty-six percent of Latinos are younger than 18 years of age, compared to 24percent
of the non-Hispanic w
hite population; and comprise 5percent of the 65 and over
population, compared to 14 percent of non-H
ispanic whites (T
herrien and Ram
irez2001). In the 18 to 64 years categories, 59 percent are Latinos and 62 percent are non-H
ispanic whites. A
ge operates on political participation in a curvilinear manner:
the very young and the very old are less likely to participate, whereas the age groups
in the middle (i.e. young adults, m
iddle age and younger seniors) are much m
ore activein political activities. For exam
ple, in the 1998 congressional elections, 17 percent of 18 to 24 year old persons voted, com
pared to 35 percent of 25 to 44 year old person.Percentages increased in older groups: 54 percent of persons 45 to 64 years old and 60 percent of persons 65 and older years of age voted (D
ay and Gaither 2000).
Thus, Latinos w
ould be less likely to be involved in politics as a result of theirdisproportionate share in the younger age groups.
Lower rates of citizenship overall and of naturalization am
ong imm
igrants areother im
portant factors that account for the lower rates of participation am
ongLatinos. C
itizenship is an indispensable requirement to register to vote in the
United States, and w
hereas 98 percent of the non-Hispanic, w
hite, 18 years of age or older population has U
.S. citizenship, only 61 percent of the Hispanic population
does. 3This results in nearly tw
o-fifths of Latinos not having the right to vote.In the analyses that follow
I will subject these factors to statistical tests to
determine and evaluate their im
pact on specific forms of participation. It is clear
that these variables affect different forms of participation in different w
ays. B
ut before I proceed, the issue of diversity among Latinos in the U
nited Statesneeds to be addressed.
Latin
o D
ive
rsity a
nd
Pa
rticipa
tion
One aspect of Latino voter participation that has received less attention in the
mainstream
political science literature has been the differences that exist among
Hispanics and the im
pact these differences may have on such participation.
Until about a decade ago, w
hen scholars referred to the participation of Hispanics,
what w
as understood as Hispanic or Latino w
as, on the one hand, an aggregationof people w
hose origins by and large were Latin A
merican or, on the other hand,
a generic label which in effect referred by extension to a locally defined Latino
group (e.g., Mexican/M
exican Am
ericans in the Southwest, C
ubans in southernFlorida, P
uerto Ricans in the N
ortheast). Taking stock of the differences inpolitical participation am
ong at least the larger Latino subgroups (i.e., Mexicans,
Puerto R
icans, and Cubans) did not com
e under serious analysis until thegroundbreaking w
ork by Rodolfo de la G
arza and his colleagues (1992), w
ho produced the Latino National Political Survey (LN
PS). T
he LNP
S provided a w
ealth of information, w
hich shattered the image of Latinos as a m
onolithicconstituency, and highlighted the nuances that exist in public policy issues and the political activities different Latinos subgroups engage in to further given agendas at the national level.
[ 45]
[ 44]
consistently lower level of participation: U
nited States citizenship. 6Obtaining
United States citizenship, it is consistently argued, provides Latinos and others
not only with an institutional advantage—
access to the polls—but also w
ith anattitudinal charge that affects their participation in other political and social spheres(Jones-C
orrea 1998). For Puerto Ricans, how
ever, citizenship has been portrayed as an obstacle to participation in the U
nited States, orienting them tow
ards theisland and rooting them
there psychologically (Handlin 1959; G
lazer and Moynihan
1970; Jennings 1988). As a result, Puerto R
icans have been described as apatheticabout politics in the U
nited States; their interest is captured by island politics,underscored by the “ideology of return,” disengaging them
from political
involvement in the U
nited States. Moreover, citizenship has facilitated easy transit
between the island and the U
nited States for Puerto Ricans, w
hich, it is argued,contributes to a high degree of m
obility and dispersion that dampen political
participation (Jennings 1988; Falcón 1989; Fitzpatrick 1984).Indeed, Puerto R
icans are in tune with political developm
ents on the island.H
owever, interest in the politics of the island has not precluded the m
ajority of Puerto R
icans who have lived in the U
nited States from being interested in
politics in the United States (Vargas-R
amos 2000), as attachm
ent to their country of origin has sim
ilarly not prevented Latinos in general from becom
ing involved inpolitics in the U
nited States (Hritzuk and Park 2000). M
oreover, while U
nited Statescitizenship has facilitated ease of transit to and from
the island, the stayof Puerto R
icans in the United States has been fairly stable. M
ost Puerto Ricans
who have lived in the U
nited States have sojourned only once, and their settlement
abroad has tended to last a decade, when not longer, m
ostly in the same m
unicipality(Vargas-R
amos 2000). T
he transiency United States citizenship indulges Puerto
Ricans w
ould presumably also affect their pattern of participation in Puerto R
ico, as it does in the U
nited States. How
ever, this is not the case either, as migrants w
horeturn to the island exhibit virtually the sam
e pattern of participation and the same
degree of involvement as those w
ho have never left the island (Vargas-Ram
os 2000).T
he drastic variations in the levels of participation among Puerto R
icans,depending on w
hether they are on the island or in the United States, have led
scholars to stress both the institutional and historical circumstances that have
resulted in Puerto Ricans’ high psychological engagem
ent and behavioralinvolvem
ent in the island to their much low
er levels of participation in the U
nited States (Falcón 1983). The im
portance of situational context and history is underscored by the experience of other racial/ethnic groups in the U
nited Statespolitical system
(e.g., African A
mericans). T
he political environment, as w
ell aspolitical events, has socialized different groups in A
merican society to engage
differently, if at all, in the political process (Morris et al. 1989).
In fact, it has been noted that Puerto Rican m
igrants have higher participationrates in the U
nited States than second-generation Puerto Ricans, w
ho may have
never been exposed to the politicizing and uplifting environment of the island
(Nelson 1984). T
his finding hints at the depressing effect on participation the U
nited States context has on Puerto Rican participation. W
hile the scope of thispaper does not allow
for engaging in such a historical and contextual analysis,exploring further w
hether individual-based characteristics have any impact on the
participation of those individuals in a given political context will contribute to isolate
the situational and institutional factors that favor some groups over others, even as
survey research is not always able to fully account for such history and context.
[ 47]
[ 46]
The w
orks that have relied on these data have yielded results that allow the
following conclusions. Puerto R
icans and Mexicans/M
exican Am
ericans vote atlow
er rates than do Cubans/C
uban Am
ericans, but this is the result of socioeconomic
and life-cycle differences (e.g., age, marital status, years in the U
nited States),as w
ell as possibly the preferential treatment of som
e Latino groups over others by the U
nited States government (A
rvizu and Garcia 1996). M
exicans and PuertoR
icans are more likely to attend political rallies and speeches than are A
nglos orC
ubans, even when sociodem
ographic characteristics (i.e., age, income, education)
are held constant (Hero and C
ampbell 1996). B
ut Mexicans are less likely to w
ork as volunteers for a political party or candidate, w
hile Cubans and Puerto R
icans arejust as likely as A
nglos to do so. 4Cubans, on the other hand, are less likely than
Mexicans, Puerto R
icans, or Anglos to contribute m
oney to a political candidate or party, to w
rite to a public official or news m
edia editor about an issue, or to attenda public m
eeting (Hero and C
ampbell 1996). T
his Cuban exceptionalism
in politicalparticipation in the U
nited States is confirmed by W
rinkle and his colleagues, who
state that while “C
ubans tend to have a higher propensity to vote than do Mexican
Am
ericans or Puerto Ricans, they are less likely to be involved in alternative form
s of political participation” (1996: 149).
Thus, the political behavior of C
ubans receives scholarly attention because itcontrasts m
arkedly with those of M
exicans/Mexican A
mericans and Puerto R
icans.T
he political behavior of Mexicans/M
exican Am
ericans also receives a lot ofattention because they constitute by far the largest of all H
ispanic groups. In addition, they are the H
ispanic group with the longest presence in the U
nitedStates. Puerto R
icans, on the other hand, have received relatively less scholarlyattention insofar as political behavior is concerned (E
stades 1978; Nelson 1979, 1984;
Falcón 1983, 1984, 1989; Jennings 1984, 1988; Cruz 1998), in part due to the
similarities in political profile of Puerto R
icans and the Mexican origin population.
Also, w
hereas the Mexican/M
exican Am
erican population in the Southwest has
traditionally been the largest minority, in num
erical and historical terms, Puerto R
icansin the N
ortheast have been but a smaller group in a society w
here the historic and m
ost visible minority has been the A
frican Am
ericans, around whom
social and political relations have centered. T
he result has been a dearth in studies of Puerto R
ican political participation.T
he Latino National Political Survey provided an enorm
ous wealth of inform
ationabout Latinos in the U
nited States, including Puerto Ricans. Its data have served
to underline that there are both activities in which the different Latino subgroups
underperform non-H
ispanic whites and activities w
here there is parity with m
ajoritypopulation. H
owever, as a cross-sectional study, the LN
PS remains a snapshot of
most Latinos in the U
nited States at a point in time. In the rem
aining space I will
present political participation results from a m
ore recent survey, conducted in New
York City in 1997 by the B
arnard/Colum
bia Center for U
rban Research and Policy:
the NY
C Participation Survey. 5T
he purpose is to compare how
Latinos in New
YorkC
ity, with special em
phasis on Puerto Ricans, fare in relation w
ith other ethnic/racialgroups, and to establish those factors that affect Puerto R
ican political participationin relation to factors that affect the participation of others in the city.
Pu
erto
Rica
ns a
nd
Pa
rticipa
tion
In addition to the factors that affect Latino participation in general, studies onPuerto R
icans have ironically highlighted one characteristic to account for their
Latin
o P
olitica
l Pa
rticipa
tion
in N
ew
Yo
rk C
ity: A
De
scriptiv
e A
na
lysis
The N
ew York C
ity Participation Survey was conducted in the late sum
mer of 1997,
and it consisted of a sample of 1480 people, 18 years of age or older, w
ho resided inany of the five boroughs of the city. 7T
he sample w
as 26 percent non-Hispanic w
hite,24 percent non-H
ispanic black, 11 percent Puerto Rican, 19 percent other Latinos
and 20 percent other backgrounds (e.g., Asians, other race). Table 1 show
s thepercentage of respondents, by racial/ethnic category, w
ho engaged in different forms
of political activity.
According to the survey, voting is the m
ost comm
on form of participation for all
groups in New
York City, a finding consistent w
ith other research. It is in registeringto vote that the low
er rates of citizenship and naturalization distinguish PuertoR
icans from other groups in N
ew York. W
hereas non-Puerto Rican Latino
respondents informed that they w
ere citizens at a rate of 69 percent, for non-Hispanic
blacks the proportion was 83 percent, and 92 percent for non-H
ispanic whites. 8
As a result, the rate of voter registration for other Latinos stood at 57 percent,
compared to 81 percent for Puerto R
icans and 73 percent for all respondents.C
onsequently, the proportion of other Latinos that voted for President in the 1996elections w
as 48 percent, compared to 61 percent for Puerto R
icans, 64 percent for non-H
ispanic blacks, and 79 percent for non-Hispanic w
hites. 9T
he importance of citizenship for participation in politics and for social
standing notwithstanding, the turnout results for Puerto R
icans, and for non-H
ispanic blacks to an extent, should strike a note of caution about the limits
lack of citizenship may have in accounting for the low
er turnout rate of Latinos.E
ven though Puerto Ricans turned out to vote in greater proportions than other
Latinos, they reported voting rates that were 18 percentage points low
er than non-H
ispanic whites, and 3 percentage points low
er than non-Hispanic blacks,
a strongly significant finding. Citizenship, in other w
ords, has not guaranteed that an individual w
ill be able to or will be disposed to register to vote and turn
out to vote. Moreover, citizenship is not necessary to becom
e involved in otherform
s of political activities (Torruellas et al. 1992; Hardy-Fanta 1993).
Voting is not the only avenue to convey preferences to policymakers.
As different people engage in different form
s of political activities, it is necessaryto focus on other form
s of participation available to political actors in addition tovoting. Som
e people are more inclined to sim
ply cast a vote, while others m
ayconcentrate exclusively on com
munal activity; yet others m
ay engage in none at all (Verba and N
ie 1972). Moreover, different form
s of participation may result
in different outcomes as a result of the type of influence each form
exerts on thegovernm
ent structure (Verba and Nie, 1972). For instance, w
hen an individual contactsan elected official, that individual m
ay convey a lot of information on a particular
issue, (e.g., siting a waste disposal operation in her neighborhood), but she m
ay be able
to exert little pressure on the official. On the other hand, voters in a given
district may exert a lot of pressure on an elected official (reelecting her or not),
but convey little information in the process of casting a vote, since voters generally
do not vote for a given candidate based on a single issue. G
etting together with others in the com
munity and lobbying C
ity Hall w
illalso provide a w
ealth of information to governm
ent officials. The level of
pressure on those officials may vary. It m
ay be high or low, depending on thenum
bers, cohesiveness, and resources of those supporting the lobbying efforts.T
hus, considering how som
e forms of participation m
ay be useful for differentpurposes, privileging som
e forms of participation over others by studying them
exclusively may have the unintended consequence of m
issing a critical aspect of thegoverning process. In fact, all Latinos engage in som
e activities at a greater rate thannon-H
ispanic whites, as show
n in Table 1. Voting nevertheless is a crucial com
ponent of the governing process from m
anyperspectives. It is the m
ost comm
on form of political participation, and one that
is normatively considered preem
inent. From the vantage point of constituents,
voting is the currency through which the political exchange takes place in this
political system. Voting m
ay convey little information to the political elites relative
to other forms of participation, but it nevertheless gauges the relative strength
of specific segments of the polity. M
oreover, in addition to the negative effect it has on voting, lack of citizenship m
ay be an inhibiting factor to overall politicalinvolvem
ent as non-citizens may not have developed a sense of stake or, alternatively,
hesitate to feel entitled in the polity in which they reside. Low
levels of citizenshipand naturalization am
ong Latinos remain serious obstacles for a very im
portant form
of participation.A
fter voting, contacting elected officials was the second m
ost comm
on politicalactivity in w
hich all respondents engaged. About a quarter of respondents contacted
a government official about a problem
or need during the previous year. This rate w
astw
o-thirds lower than the rate of voting for all respondents. A
mong Latinos, the rate
of contacting was even low
er, with less than a fifth of Latinos turning to their elected
officials to address their concerns. Non-H
ispanic blacks make contacts at a higher
rate (six percentage points) than Latinos, and non-Hispanic w
hites contact at rateshigher than any other group in N
ew York C
ity (eleven percentage points higher thanLatinos; five percentage points higher than non-H
ispanic blacks), a statisticallysignificant finding. T
his implies that non-H
ispanics (black and white) convey m
oreinform
ation about their wants and needs to elected officials than do Latinos, and
that whites also have an advantage over blacks on this account.
For all respondents, the third most com
mon political activity w
as contributingm
oney to a political campaign or candidate; 17 percent of respondents did so. 10
How
ever, for Latinos, the third most com
mon political activity w
as other forms
of electoral politics: attending a political meeting, such as a city council or board
of education hearings, as was the case for Puerto R
icans, or attending political rallies, as w
as the case for other Latinos. Non-H
ispanic blacks reported to be the New
Yorkersm
ost likely to attend such a political meeting (19 percent), follow
ed by Puerto Ricans
(17 percent) and then other Latinos (15 percent), a statistically significant finding.
[ 49]
[ 48]
TAB
LE1
Po
litical A
ctivity
in N
ew
Yo
rk C
ity b
y E
thn
icity (in
pe
rcen
tag
es)
Source: Barnard/Colum
bia Center for U
rban Research and Policy, 1997.
Differences in proportions *significant at .05; **significant at 0.01; ***significant at .001
All
Resp
ond
entsN
on-H
ispanic
Whites
No
n-Hisp
anicB
lacksP
uertoR
icansO
therLatino
s
Reg
istered to
Vote***
Voted
(for P
resident in 1996)***
Cam
paig
n Wo
rkC
amp
aign C
ontrib
utions
Po
litical Fundraising
Attend
ed P
olitical R
allies*A
ttended
Po
litical Meeting
*C
ontact**
Pro
test
73658171114152413
81796201010113010
756410161418192517
81617131112171813
574811161116151913
Activity
Those attending political rallies w
ere more likely to be non-H
ispanic blacks (18 percent),follow
ed by other Latinos (16 percent) and then Puerto Ricans (12 percent),
also statistically significant differences. Non-H
ispanic whites w
ere the least likely to attend these tw
o types of electoral activities as well as volunteering in political
campaigns, although the differences in proportions for the latter activity are not
statistically significant. 11Other activities for w
hich the differences were not statistically
significant were participating in a protest or political dem
onstrations, making cam
paigncontributions, and attending fundraisers for a political cam
paign or candidate. Participation is also gauged by m
easuring the total number of activities an
individual undertakes. To this end I constructed three indices of participation: one that m
easured overall political participation, and two that m
easured separatelythe m
ost comm
on forms of participation–voting and contacting. 12For overall
participation, of a maxim
um eleven political activities an individual could engage
in, the average participation was in 2.4 activities (w
ith a standard deviation of 2.3activities). For non-H
ispanic whites the average participation w
as 2.7 activities (sd= 2.1); for non-H
ispanic blacks, 2.5 (sd=2.4); for Puerto Ricans, 2.3 (sd=2.2);
and for Latinos, other than Puerto Ricans, 2.1 (sd=2.7). T
his means that Puerto R
icans,other Latinos, and non-H
ispanic blacks participate in fewer political activitiesthan do
non-Hispanic w
hites, at rates of 15 percent, 22 percent, and 7 percent lower, respectively.
This low
er participation in political activity by Latinos and non-Hispanic blacks
is also evident in the indices of voting participation and contacting government
officials. Puerto Ricans and non-H
ispanic blacks turn out to vote at a rate 14 percentlow
er and other Latinos at a rate more than 36 percent low
er than non-Hispanic
whites. N
on-Hispanic blacks m
ake contacts at a rate 29 percent lower than do
non-Hispanic w
hites; other Latinos, at a rate 32 percent lower; and Puerto R
icans, at a rate 40 percent low
er. 13W
hat can be concluded from these data is that non-H
ispanic whites have an edge
over other groups in New
York City insofar as political participation is concerned.
This advantage is notable in the m
ost extended forms of political engagem
ent: votingand contacting. T
his advantage has the potential to translate into a higher degree ofinfluence for non-H
ispanic whites in the selection of governm
ent officials and policyoutcom
es than there is for other groups, particularly for Latinos. And w
hile thepolitical dynam
ics need not result in zero-sum gam
es between racial and/or ethnic
groups, differing degrees of incorporation into the networks of governm
ent tend toresult in disproportionate allocations of governm
ent resources to different groups in the polity (B
rowning et al. 1984).
Overall, Puerto R
icans lagged behind other groups in New
York City, including
other Latinos, in contacting elected officials, consistent with previous findings
(e.g., de la Garza et al. 1992). T
hey outperformed non-H
ispanic whites in attending
political rallies and meetings, in contrast to findings elsew
here (de la Garza et al. 1992),
but underperfomed non-H
ispanic blacks in both activities. Finally, Puerto R
icansw
ere out-voted by both non-Hispanic blacks and w
hites. Thus, the “voice” that Puerto
Ricans m
ay have relative to other groups in the city is not silent, but it is dampened.
The activities in w
hich Puerto Ricans, and other Latinos, engage in to com
municate
preferences to government officials m
ay convey sufficient information to them
, but m
ay bring little pressure to bear on those officials, although Puerto Ricans exert
more pressure politically than other Latinos because of their higher turnout rate.It m
ay be argued that Puerto Ricans in N
ew York C
ity have achieved parity insofaras descriptive representation in governm
ent structures is concerned and therefore
whatever low
er participation Puerto Ricans, or other groups, exhibit m
ay have littleim
pact on the public policy decision made and the resulting governm
ent programs. 14
Those Puerto R
ican elected officials would presum
ably represent the interests of a Puerto R
ican constituency. How
ever, as political entrepreneurs, Puerto Rican
elected officials may not have any greater incentive to prom
ote the participation of constituents w
ho comm
only do not become involved, and w
ho might potentially
threaten the electoral coalitions that get them elected, than elected officials from
any other ethnic/racial group. Ultim
ately the interests, wants, and needs that are
represented are the ones belonging to those who can exert pressure, in addition to
conveying information, on elected officials. T
herefore, it is important to continue
exploring the factors that hinder participation in order to provide correctivem
easures that may dim
inish or eliminate their effect, so those w
ho remain voiceless
may be heard.
Latin
o P
olitica
l Pa
rticipa
tion
in N
ew
Yo
rk C
ity: A
Biv
aria
te A
na
lysis
In the preceding section, I described how the political participation of N
ew Yorkers
differs on the basis of ethnicity and/or race, one of the most salient cleavages in
politics in the United States. In this section, I w
ill expand the analysis to otherfactors that have been hypothesized to have an effect on political participation. I w
ill test factors that have been highlighted by the Socioeconomic Status m
odel(Verba and N
ie 1972), its refinement—
the Civic Voluntarism
model (Verba et al.
1995)—as w
ell as postulates of akin “associationist” models, such as those that rely
on social capital explanations (Putnam 2000) and its refinem
ent–the political capitalm
odel (Fuchs et al. 2000; 2001). The m
odels will be operationalized as follow
s: the Socioeconom
ic Status (SES) and C
ivic Voluntarism (C
VM
) models stress the role
of education, income, and em
ployment status, along w
ith psychological involvement
variables (interest in politics, sense of political efficacy, political discussion) and theim
pact of general associational involvement on participation, so that the m
oreeducated or interested a person is or the m
ore mem
berships a person has, the more
likely it is that that person will be politically engaged, and engaged at higher rates.
The C
VM
, moreover, highlights the role of belonging to specific religious
denominations and the place of m
obilization to political action. The type of
association matters as w
ell. Whereas A
frican Am
ericans were able to develop
politically relevant skills in the more participatory and socially active Protestant
churches, Latinos, who are overw
helmingly C
atholic, were less likely to develop
organizational and comm
unication skills in the Church, due to its m
ore hierarchicaland institutionalized structures. T
hus Catholics are expected to participate at low
errates than non-C
atholics.T
he social capital model looks at social netw
orks, trustworthiness, and norm
s ofreciprocity that are fostered by relating to m
embers of the com
munity, w
hether byjoining organizations, establishing roots in the com
munity related to long-term
settlement, or ow
ning a home, am
ong others. Political capital models focus m
ore on politics-specific associational involvem
ent and resources, such as belonging topolitically active organizations, or associations that m
ay have become involved
in politics, such as labor unions. The m
ore numerous the m
embership in such politically
oriented organizations, the higher the participation rate is expected to be.M
oreover, being exposed to an environment w
here participation is the normencourages people to take part in political activity. T
his is an argument that underlies
social capital approaches to participation. But w
hereas joining an organization
[ 51][ 50
]
is a voluntary act, there is less flexibility in choosing one’s coworkers and fam
ilym
embers. H
owever, their activities m
ay impact and inform
one’s behavior, as when
an individual’s chances of voting may increase w
hen family m
embers, friends,
or co-workers vote. C
itizenship is also conceptualized and operationalized as a political capital variable that increases the chances of political engagem
ent.Sociodem
ographic variables such as age, gender, and ethnicity are also included in the analysis due to their consistent im
pact on participation.T
he analysis proceeds in three stages. I first test bivariately for the relevance of these factors on political participation variables on the larger survey sam
ple, and then test bivariately the sam
e factors on the political participation variable foreach of tw
o subsamples, one m
ade up of all Latinos and another including PuertoR
icans exclusively. The purpose is to ascertain w
hether the factors that affect thepolitical participation of m
embers of a larger society are the sam
e factors that affect
subsets of that society. Table 2 shows the strength of the relationship, as m
easured by correlation coefficients, betw
een sociodemographic, socioeconom
ic, institutional,and psychological variables described above; and three m
easures of politicalparticipation—
overall political participation, voting, and contacting electedofficials—
for the entire sample. W
ith a few exceptions to be noted, the coefficients
indicate a positive association between the variables.
Belonging to an organization provides the m
ost robust positive correlation tooverall participation in N
ew York C
ity (r=.51), though affiliation to a politically activeorganization show
s stronger correlation (r=.49) than being a mem
ber of a non-political association (r=.25). 15B
eing psychologically in tune to politics, either byshow
ing interest in politics (r=.37) or discussing about politically relevant issues(r=.33), also show
s a solid association with overall participation. C
itizenship (r=.34)and having fam
ily mem
bers that are regular voters (r=.26) also correlates solidly with
overall participation. The effects of politically active friends and co-w
orkers ispositive and significant, though m
ore moderate (r=.19), as is the case of “rootedness”
in the comm
unity, as measured by length of tim
e in the comm
unity (r=.23), either atthe current address (r=.19) or w
hether the respondent owns his or her hom
e (r=.16).Socioeconom
ic variables also show a m
oderate positive association with
participation, with incom
e (r=.24) being more robust than em
ployment status (r.=14),
followed by the num
ber of years of schooling (r.=08). Receiving prom
pts to registerto vote or to turn out and vote (m
obilization) registers a moderate association w
ithoverall participation (r=.24), but the negative association betw
een reporting beingC
atholic and participation is weak (r=-.08). A
lso weak are the correlations betw
eenparticipation and som
e measures of ethnicity (non-H
ispanic white and Latino);
correlations are insignificant for gender and for other measures of ethnicity
(non-Hispanic black and Puerto R
ican). Age, how
ever, is the one sociodemographic
variable that has a moderate association (r=.24) w
ith overall participation.T
hese results give credence to the “associationist” core of the Civic Voluntarism
model and the social capital m
odel. How
ever, the most robust institutional variables
are those delineated by the political capital model, w
hose variable include belongingto politically active organization, citizenship, and having fam
ily mem
bers that areregular voters. T
he psychological and the strictly socioeconomic variables that SE
Sand C
VM
describe as intervening in the politicization process also show strong
associations. It is the identity variables—gender and race/ethnicity—
that exhibit thew
eakest, if any, association to participation. Being fem
ale, non-Hispanic black,
or Puerto Rican does not show
any statistically significant association with overall
political engagement, w
hereas being non-Hispanic w
hite or Latino has a weak
association, positive for the former, negative for the latter.
This pattern of association is replicated w
hen the political activity gauged is contacting.For the voting m
easure, however, the pattern shifts som
ewhat. T
he most robust
associations with voting are not those that em
phasize organizational mem
bership(r=.21) or m
embership in politically active groups (r=.17), but those variables
highlighted by the political capital model and the social capital m
odel that emphasize
“rootedness” in a comm
unity: citizenship (r=.6), years in the comm
unity (r=.46) or at current address (r=.34), and w
hether family (r=.36), friends (r=.27), or co-w
orkers(r=.25) are frequent voters. O
f the SES variables, interest in politics (r=.34), education
(r=.15), and income (r=.14) have fairly strong associations; they are stronger than the
association with m
obilization (r=.22). Whether the respondent is w
orking does not havea significant association w
ith voting; neither does gender, nor being Puerto R
ican
[ 53]
[ 52]
.239**(1185).083**(1102).243**(1090).136**(1465)
.003(1447).085**(1177).025(1177)-.092**(1177)-.033(1177).231**(1244).193**(1238).163**(1232).341**(1274)-.081**(1234).228**(1340).52**(1346).248**(848).493**(848).237**(1340).37**(1457).127**(1378).33**(1360).262**(1306).191**(1173).187**(947)
.394**(1186).151**(1102).142**(1090).026(1468).034(1449).196**(1178).007(1178)-.226**(1178).007(1178).458**(1244).343**(1238).192**(1232).604**(1273)-.012(1234).18**(1339).213**(1345).106(847).169**(847).223**(1340).336**(1460).139**(1378).139**(1359).359**(1306).272**(1173).254**(947)
.098**(1177).108**(1094).211**(1083).016(1345).025(1340).128**(1149)-.038(1149)-.051(1149)-.061*(1149).102**(1237).116**(1237).161**(1223).179**(1256)-.064*(1226).157**(1335).389**(1339).2*(846).327**(846).168**(1256).25**(1341).093** (1326).222**(1334).127**(1244).111**(1118).104**(904)
Ag
e
Ed
ucation
Incom
e
Em
plo
yment S
tatus
Gend
er (Female)
No
nHisp
anic White
No
nHisp
anic Black
Latino
Puerto
Rican
Length o
f Tim
e in City
Length o
f Tim
e at Ad
dress
Ho
meo
wner
Citizenship
Catho
lic
Mem
bership
in Labo
r Unio
n
Org
anizational M
emb
ership
Mem
bership
in No
n-Po
litical Org
.
Mem
bership
in Po
l. Active O
rg.
Mo
bilized
Interest in Po
litics
Po
litical Efficacy
Po
litical Discussio
n
Family M
emb
ers Usually Vo
te
Friends U
sually Vote
Co
-Wo
rkers Usually Vo
te
TAB
LE2
Pe
arso
n’s C
orre
latio
n fo
r Po
litically
Re
lev
an
t Va
riab
les
* Significant at .05 level ** Significant at .01 level Overall
Particip
ation
Voting
Co
ntacting
Overall
Particip
ation
Vo
tingC
ontacting
Overall
Particip
ation
Vo
tingC
ontacting
larger Latino subsample. It does, how
ever, have a moderate association on overall
participation and contacting among Puerto R
icans.O
verall mem
bership in associations shows the strongest correlations w
ith overallparticipation (r=.63) and contacting (r=. 45) am
ong all Latinos and exclusively among
Puerto Ricans (r=.42 and r=.43, respectively). T
he correlations between specifically
political organizational mem
bership and overall participation and contacting (r=.65 and r=.45, respectively) are m
ore robust than non-political mem
bership andthose sam
e activities (r=.22 and r=.14, respectively) among Latinos as w
ell as forPuerto R
icans, for whom
non-political mem
bership is not significantly associatedw
ith any political activity. (The correlations betw
een political-oriented mem
bershipand overall participation and contacting for Puerto R
icans are strong coefficients:r=.39 and r=.31, respectively.)
Psychological engagement variables have strong to m
oderately strongcorrelations w
ith overall participation and contacting among Latinos and Puerto
Ricans. E
ngaging in discussions about politics with others has strong associations
with overall participation (r=.43) and contacting (r=.31) am
ong Latinos. These associations
are more m
oderate among Puerto R
icans (r=.28 and r=.22, respectively). Interest inpoliticshas a fairly strong correlation w
ith overall participation (r=.35) but moderately
strong with contacting am
ong Latinos. Am
ong Puerto R
icans, interest in politics is m
oderately correlated with overall participation (r=.23) but insignificantly
correlated with contacting. Incom
e is also strongly correlated with overall
participation (r=.4) and contacting (r=.31) for Latinos, and moderately correlated
(r=.26) among P
uerto Ricans. E
ducation, as mentioned, is insignificantly correlated
with overall participation and contacting am
ong Latinos, but positively correlated(r=.22 and r=.27, respectively) am
ong Puerto R
icans. Mobilization has a strong
correlation with overall participation (r=.35) and is m
oderately associated with
contacting (r=.24) for the Latino group; but it is not significantly correlated with
overall participation among Puerto R
icans. It is, however, m
oderately correlated w
ith contacting for this group.O
ne associational variable highlighted by the CV
M is the role of religion in
political life. Verba and his colleagues (1995) have traced the depressing effect thatbeing C
atholic has on political involvement am
ong Latinos. This observation is
borne out in this bivariate analysis. Being C
atholic is associated negatively with
overall participation and contacting among Latinos. T
he association is moderately
weak for overall participation (r=-.14) and contacting (r=-.11). A
mong Puerto R
icans,how
ever, the association between identifying as C
atholic and participation (overallparticipation and contacting) is positive, although the association is not statisticallysignificant. M
oreover, there is a moderate positive correlation (r=.21) betw
een votingand identifying as C
atholic among this group of Latinos. T
his may be the result of
the largely nominal character of C
atholicism am
ong Puerto Ricans. T
he lesser theinfluence of institutionalized C
atholicism is on Puerto R
icans, the smaller, if any,
depressing influence on political participation. These results are an interesting
contrast to those highlighted in the literature for all Latinos.T
he remaining political capital variables show
a moderate to strong association
with participation variables am
ong Latinos. For Puerto Ricans, how
ever, theassociations are m
oderate, when they are significant. U
nited States citizenship’sassociation w
ith overall participation is strong (r=.32), and moderate (r=.2) w
ith regardto contacting, am
ong Latinos. For Puerto Ricans, the correlation is not statistically
significant. Am
ong those Latinos whose fam
ily mem
bers, friends, and co-workers
[ 55]
[ 54]
or non-Hispanic black. B
eing Latino, however, has a m
oderate negative associationw
ith voting (r=-.23), which is evidently related to the low
er rate of citizenship for theLatino group as a w
hole. At the sam
e time, voting is positively related w
ith beingnon-H
ispanic white (r=.2). A
ge has a strong positive association with voting (r=.39).
I now replicate the bivariate analyses on tw
o smaller sam
ples. Table 3 shows the
Pearson’s correlation results for Latinos (including Puerto Ricans) and for Puerto
Ricans exclusively. T
he pattern that emerges in the cityw
ide sample is by and large
repeated in both subsamples. T
he “associationist” variables have strong correlationsw
ith overall participation and contacting, but those that are strictly political in focushave m
ore robust associations. The political orientation variables, som
e of thesocioeconom
ic variables, and the mobilization m
easure, proposed by the CV
M,
also have strong associations with overall participation. T
hose that rely exclusivelyon social capital factors are significantly related, but at w
eaker levels, if at all. For voting, as w
ith the larger sample, the variables that em
phasize “rootedness” in the social capital and political capital approaches have stronger correlations,w
hereas the associational variables have moderately strong correlations. G
ender andpolitical efficacy have no significant association w
ith any of the measures of political
engagement am
ong all Latinos or among Puerto R
icans exclusively. Education does
not have a significant association with any m
easure of participation, but only for the
.226**(379)-.042(349).397**(368).103*(449).033(448).027(407).128**(407).109*(405).323**(420)-.142**(414).355**(430).631**(431).221**(231).646**(431).346**(434).349**(444).018(430).429**(432).248**(406).168**(362).22**(313)
.356**(380).096(349).188**(368)-.01(450).017(449).372**(407).265**(407).094(405).609**(420).025(414).246**(430).222**(431).023(231).225**(231).22**(434).283**(445).089(430).191**(432).31**(406).208**(362).236**(313)
.063(377).015(347).305**(366).087(429).039(429)-.012(406)0.075(406).128**(403).195**(417)-.114*(412).265**(429).487**(429).142*(231).453**(231).239**(417).242**(427).026 (420).309**(425).144**(394).146**(351).161**(305)
.223**(161).221*(133).262**(146).141(167).003(167).241**(162).255**(164).231**(158).01(167).1(166).285**(166).421**(167).073(90).394**(90).223(163).23**(167).129(163).279**(166).155(154).131(131).217*(125)
.399**(161).132(133).173*(146).189*(167)-.07(167).396**(162).293**(164).134(158).229**(167).207**(166).282**(166).19**(167).002(90).208*(90).194*(163).184*(167).148(163).08(166).258**(154).168 (131).229**(125)
.049(160).269**(132).259**(145).065(166)0.026(166).151(162).158*(164).162*(157).01(166).13 (165).208**(166).432**(166).116(90).305**(90).186*(162).138(166).118(162).216**(165).172*(154)
.176*(130).134(124)
Ag
e
Ed
ucation
Incom
e
Em
plo
yment S
tatus
Gend
er (Female)
Length o
f Tim
e in City
Length o
f Tim
e at Ad
dress
Ho
meo
wner
Citizenship
Catho
lic
Mem
bership
in Labo
r Unio
n
Org
anizational M
emb
ership
Mem
bership
in No
n-Po
litical Org
.
Mem
bership
in Po
litically Active O
rg.
Mo
bilized
Interest in Po
litics
Po
litical Efficacy
Po
litical Discussio
n
Family M
emb
ers Usually Vo
te
Friends U
sually Vote
Co
-Wo
rkers Usually Vo
te
TAB
LE3
Pe
arso
n’s C
orre
latio
n fo
r P
olitica
lly R
ele
va
nt V
aria
ble
s
* Significant at .05 level ** Significant at .01 level Latinos (includ
ing P
uerto R
icans)P
uerto R
icans
Latin
o P
olitica
l Pa
rticipa
tion
in N
ew
Yo
rk C
ity: A
Mu
ltiva
riate
An
aly
sisT
hese bivariate analyses have highlighted the impact that individual participatory
factors may have on the three m
easures of participation presented. How
ever, toascertain the independent effect that each variable m
ay have on participation, a m
ultivariate analysis is needed. Bivariate associations m
ay mask the im
pact thatotherunderlying factors m
ay have on variables. For instance, the length of time
a person has lived in the comm
unity may operate positively on voting as a result
of the age of the respondent, and vice versa. The older one is, the m
ore likely it is for that person to turn out to vote. B
ut the older a person is, the more likely
it is that such a person has lived in his or her comm
unity longer than a youngerperson. T
hus, age, as well as other hypothesized participatory variables,
needs to be included in a model in order to control for their effects on each
other and on the dependent variable.O
rdinary-least-square regression models w
ere run separately for the citywide
sample and the subsam
ple of all Latinos and Puerto Ricans. Table 4 show
s theunstandardized coefficients of the regression’s results for the cityw
ide sample.
It becomes im
mediately apparent that citizenship, a political capital variable,
is an important factor in accounting for overall participation and voting.
Am
erican citizens engage in 1.6 activities of overall participation and 1.7 votingactivities (i.e., turn out) above those w
ho are not citizens. This finding is not
unexpected for the voting measure, but it highlights the political capital for general
political engagement citizenship provides individuals in N
ew York. O
ther politicalcapital variables are significant as w
ell. Mem
bership in associations that are involvedin politics and those that are strictly non-political increases overall participation by half an activity each for each association a person is a m
ember of. Political
orientation variables such as an interest in politics and efficacy also increaseparticipation significantly. A
lot of interest in politics would boost participation
by more than one activity over those w
ho are not at all interested in politics. Sim
ilarly, feeling more strongly that the political system
is responsive to theirneeds and that they are able to effect change on the system
increases their overallparticipation by m
ore than one activity over those who feel the political system
is unresponsive or that they have little ability to effect change. E
thnicity and race, on the other hand, do not exhibit a statistically significant effect on any of theparticipation m
easures, indicating that if Puerto Ricans or all Latinos or m
inoritiesin general participate in politics at rates low
er than those of non-Hispanic w
hites,it is the result of factors that are correlated w
ith race and/or ethnicity, such ascitizenship or m
embership in an organization. 17
Besides citizenship, no other political capital variable’s coefficient show
s statisticalsignificance on voting. E
ducation, a socioeconomic m
easure, boosts participationsolidly, so that a high school graduate can expect her voting participation to be one-half an activity higher than som
eone who has had not form
al schooling, while a college
graduate’s voting activity is estimated to be 33 percent higher (or about .72 activities).
More robust still is the length of residence at the current address. For instance, a
person who has lived in the sam
e apartment for 15 years is estim
ated to have voted at arate 50 percent higher than som
eone who has only lived in her house for 4 years. A
geis also a sociodem
ographic variable that increases voting activity significantly. Forcontacting, three variables show
a statistically significant coefficient: mem
bership inorganizations, both those w
ith a political focus as well as those non-political in nature,
and persons who have received request to vote or to register to vote.
[ 57]
vote, the associations with overall participation and contacting are fairly consistent:
positive and moderate. A
mong Puerto R
icans, the pattern is not as consistent. T
he correlations are positive, but not all of them are significant. For overall
participation, only having co-workers w
ho are regular voters had a significantm
oderate association (r=.22). For contacting, only having friends (r=.18) and family
mem
bers (r=.17) who vote regularly have m
oderate positive correlations.Lastly, the variables that m
easure “rootedness” in the comm
unity show
a moderate to slight association w
ith participation measures. H
omeow
nership has a slight correlation w
ith overall participation (r=.11) and contacting (r=.13) among
Latinos. It also has a moderate correlation w
ith participation (r=.23) and slighterassociation w
ith contacting (r=.16) among Puerto R
icans. Length of residence in the current address is slightly correlated w
ith overall participation (r=.13), but it is not significantly correlated w
ith contacting among Latinos. For Puerto
Ricans, years at the current address has a m
oderate correlation with participation
(r=.26) and slightly moderate association w
ith contacting (r=.16). A
s is the case for the larger citywide sam
ple, the correlations between voting
and the other participation-relevant factors differ from those seen for overall
participation and contacting. As in the larger sam
ple, the factors associated with
rootedness in the comm
unity show a consistent strong positive association w
ithvoting am
ong Latinos; they are length of time in the com
munity (r=.37) and length
of residence at current address (r=.27). (Hom
eownership does not have a significant
correlation with voting.) C
itizenship shows the strongest association (r=.61).
Asocial environm
ent supportive of voting is also strongly to moderately associated
with turning out to vote as are political orientations [interest (r=.28) and discussion
(r=.19)]. Asense of political efficacy, how
ever, does not correlate significantly with
voting. Associational m
embership, m
ore specifically the politically oriented mem
bership,has a m
oderately strong association with voting (r=.23). N
on-political associationalm
embership does not correlate significantly either. Incom
e, but not education, has a m
oderate association with voting. A
ge, on the other hand, has a strong association.T
he pattern is very similar for the Puerto R
ican subsample, but w
ith some variations.
Age is the m
ost robust correlate (r=.4). Citizenship’s correlation is m
oderately strong.Identifying as C
atholic has a moderately strong positive association (r=.21).
Interest in politics is significantly associated (r=.18), but neither efficacy nor holding discussion about politics is significantly associated. W
hether friends vote regularly does not have a significant association w
ith voting, but having fam
ily mem
bers and co-workers w
ho do so has a moderately strong association.
So does being employed (r=.19), no m
atter whether full-tim
e or part-time,as w
ell as belonging to a labor union (r=.28).
It is noteworthy that w
hile in general the variables’ correlation patterns for all m
easures of participation are fairly consistent across samples, w
ith strongassociations for political capital and SE
S/CV
M variables and m
ore moderate
association for social capital variables, many variables that are significantly
correlated in the citywide sam
ple and the Latino subsample do not have significant
associations with participation variables in the P
uerto Rican subsam
ple. 16T
his is an indication of the homogeneity of the P
uerto Rican group in N
ew York
City. T
hus, while the variables that m
ay account for participation in the generalsociety m
ay not account for participation within the P
uerto Rican group,
Puerto R
icans may em
body characteristics that in the general society result in relatively low
er participation rates.
[ 56]
voting participation model. In addition to citizenship, significant coefficients are
those measuring psychological engagem
ent and age. But w
hile interest in politicshas a positive effect on voting, talking about politics counterintuitively has a significant negative effect. A
dditional research is needed to account for this result.It m
ay be the consequence of disaffection with the vote as a form
of politicalexpression am
ong the most politically attentive Latinos. A
lternatively, it may be
a manifestation of the eagerness of som
e Latinos to be civically and politicallyactive, but unable to exercise the vote as a result of their citizenship status. 18
In the contacting model, in addition to citizenship, m
embership in non-political
associations again shows a positive though m
odest effect. This is puzzling. O
new
ould presume that on this activity, politics-oriented organizations, w
hichfrequently call on their m
embers to contact their elected official in lobbying efforts,
would have a stronger effect than non-political organizations. O
n the other hand,as contacting tends to have a m
ore particularized nature than other forms of
participation, the significant impact non-political m
embership has on contacting
points to the workings of social capital netw
orks provide individuals. Education also
shows a positive effect on contacting am
ong Latinos, boosting participation among
high school graduates by half an activity and college graduates by three-quarters ofan activity. M
oreover, having friends who are frequent voters also increases
contacting by half an activity.
[ 59]
The solid positive im
pact (a quarter of a contact activity) that being mobilized
has may result from
the individual making the contact turning to the elected official
who has previously called on her to participate. For the Latino subsam
ple, the pattern of significant variables changes somew
hatfrom
the citywide sam
ple. Citizenship has a very strong positive effect on all three
measures of participation (See Table 5). It boosts the participation of Latinos by tw
oor m
ore overall participation and voting activities, and by half a contact activity. B
ut the only other factor that has a significant coefficient in the overall participationm
odel is mem
bership in politically active organizations. It increases participationby m
ore than half an activity. Thus, a person belonging to five organizations that
engage in political activity can see her overall participation increase by threeactivities. T
he coefficients for associationist variables are not significant in the
[ 58]
-3.441**(1.055).013(.012).034(.043).022(.069)-.0596(.286)-.158(.302).248(.446).549(.522).342(.356).056(.089).16(.3)1.578**(.468).272(.297).519**(.129).492 **(.1).16(.32).471**(.173).153**(.048).028(.051).465(.354)-.331(.411)-.318(.571)
0.4540.3998.24**229
-1.965**(.422).019**(.005).045**(.017)-.003117(.028).09(.114).152(.121)-.310(.178).244(.209).152(.142).073*(.035).027(.12)1.75**(.187).064(.119).048(.051).068(.051)-.128(.128)
.104(.069).022(.019)-.01077(.02).220(.142)-.0491(.164).041(.228)
0.5770.53413.521**229
-.534(.415).0023(.005).0033(.017).014(.027).11(.112)-.138(.119).0083(.175).039(.205)-.03394(.14).008(.035).149(.118).284(.184).123(.117).151**(.051).104**(.039).251*(.126).122(.068).026(.019)-.008337(.02)-.101(.139)-.00052(.161)-.01273(.224)
0.2560.1813.415**229
Co
nstant
Ag
e
Ed
ucation
Incom
e
Gend
er (Female)
Catho
lic
Latino (O
ther than Puerto
Rican)
Puerto
Rican
No
n-Hisp
anic Black
Length o
f Tim
e at Ad
dress
Ho
meo
wnership
Citizenship
Mem
bership
in Labo
r Unio
n
Mem
bership
in No
n-Po
litical Org
.
Mem
bership
in Po
litically Active O
rg.
Mo
bilized
Interest in Po
litics
Po
litical Efficacy
Po
litical Discussio
n
Family M
emb
ers Usually Vo
te
Friends U
sually Vote
Co
-Wo
rkers Mem
bers U
sually Vote
R-S
quare
Ad
j R-S
quare
F ratioD
egrees o
f Freedo
m
TAB
LE4
Po
lticial P
articip
atio
n (O
LS R
eg
ressio
n:
City
wid
e S
am
ple
)
* Significant at .05 level ** Significant at .01 level Overall
Particip
ation
Voting
Co
ntacting
-6.545**(1.817).0291(.022).08567(.07).03598(.134).502(.522).09922(.154)2.04*(.79).339(.524).282(.214).601**(.196).302(.653).337(.288).14(.079).04586(.1)-.03237(.542).284(.768).832(1.1)
0.4260.3073.569**93
-2.672**(.68).03017**(.008).04106(.026)-.03535(.05).02677(.195)-.04845(.058)2.205**(.296).203(.196).0592(.08).06588(.073).01932(.245).339 **(.108)0.0177(.03)-.112**(.037).115(.203).195(.288).694(.412)
0.6180.5397.782**93
-2.015**(.556).000879(.007).04766*(.021).0898(.041).305(.16).0009887(.047).522*(.242).289(.16).182**(.065).113(.06)-.06902(.2).09364(.088).005427(.024)-.01304(.03)-.107(.166).529*(.235)-.0713(.337)
0.3830.2552.988**93
-7.174(4.973).04919(.043).259(.158).02559(.278).296(1.01).22(.303).939(3.066).553(1.013)-.07416(.442).36(.479).357(1.239).06081(.657).161(.192).02553(.196)-.354(1.204).453(1.531).761(2.108)
0.4090.0151.03740
-1.86(1.393).02946*(.012).01677(.044)-.00359(.078)-.355(.283).02848(.085)1.7(.859).107(.284).02981(.124)
.145(.134).425(.347).22(.184).06788(.054)-.105(.055)
-.08088(.337).14(.429).955(.59)
0.6540.4242.838**40
-3.126*(1.162).005306(.01).136**(.037).03614(.065).245(.236).06448(.071).458(.717).142(.237).225*(.103)-.0138(.112).02869(.29)-.148(.154).01585(.045).02945(.046).05304(.281).544(.358)-.235(.493)
0.5910.3192.172*40
Co
nstant
Ag
e
Ed
ucation
Incom
e
Gend
er (Female)
Length o
f Tim
e at Ad
dress
Citizenship
Mem
bership
in Labo
r Unio
n
Mem
bership
in No
n-Po
litical Org
.
Mem
bership
in Po
litically Active O
rg.
Mo
bilized
Interest in Po
litics
Po
litical Efficacy
Po
litical Discussio
n
Family U
sually Vote
Friends U
sually Vote
Co
-Wo
rkers Usually Vo
te
R-S
quare
Ad
j R-S
quare
F ratioD
egrees o
f Freedo
m
TAB
LE5
Political Particip
ation
(OLS
Reg
ression
: Latino
s and
Puerto
Rican
s)
* Significant at .05 level ** Significant at .01 level
Overall
Particip
ation
Vo
tingC
ontacting
Latinos (includ
ing P
uerto R
icans)O
verall P
articipatio
nV
oting
Co
ntacting
Puerto
Ricans
those of another in an arena with lim
ited resources. Thus, relatively w
eak politicalm
uscle, the result of unrealized potential, undermines P
uerto Rican efforts to
fulfill social needs.Very few
variations within the Puerto R
ican group and within the Latino group
explain differences in political participation. Age is the only variable that affects the
turnout rate among Puerto R
icans, so that older Puerto Ricans have a higher rate
of voting than younger Puerto Ricans. T
his effect of age on voting may be indicative
of the impact of socialization on voting am
ong Puerto Ricans. O
lder Puerto Ricans
tend to have been born and raised on the island, whereas the younger ones tend
to be born and/or raised in the United States. T
he participatory climate on the island
may have inculcated older, island-reared Puerto R
icans with the habit of turning
out to vote to an extent that their U.S.-reared offsprings m
ay have not been exposedto. H
owever, this generational difference needs to be explored further (along w
iththe life-cycle/age effect), for Puerto R
icans as well as other groups.
For Latinos age is also a positive factor in turnout. But in addition to age,
those Latinoswho are U
.S. citizens are more likely to vote. A
mong Puerto R
icanscitizenship is not a significant variable. T
his characteristic is a constant, so it has noim
pact on their voting rates. The value of U
.S. citizenship for Puerto Ricans lies on
its effect on participation when com
pared to other Latinos and other New
Yorkers,but not w
ithin the group. How
ever, relative to other Latinos, Puerto Ricans have
an advantage. This advantage notw
ithstanding, the case of Puerto Ricans and
African A
mericans should underscore the lim
its United States citizenship has
politically for racialized ethnic minorities and colonized peoples.
Puerto Ricans m
ay be more or less interested in politics or engage others in
political discussion, but it does not have the effect on voting that it does for otherLatinos. In this sense non-Puerto R
ican Latinos are distinct from Puerto R
ican asw
ell as other New
Yorkers, since interest in politics or political discussion is not a significant variable for the larger sam
ple. On the other hand, Puerto R
icans andLatinos in general are distinct from
other New
Yorkers, particularly non-Hispanic
whites, in that education has a very significant effect on voting. E
ducation does nothave an effect on voting w
hen the analysis involves Latinos or Puerto Ricans alone.
But the results are different in the larger society. B
ecause Puerto Ricans and Latinos
as groups have lower levels of educational attainm
ent (14 years of education relativeto 16 years for w
hites), this lag in education depresses their rate of voting when
compared to non-H
ispanic whites.
Higher levels of education and m
embership in non-political associations do m
akePuerto R
icans contact elected officials at a greater rate. For Latinos the effect is thesam
e, in addition to the increase in contacting that U.S. citizenship produces.
The positive effect higher educational attainm
ent has on contacting among Puerto
Ricans and Latinos in general is not present in the larger sam
ple. Instead, it is thoseN
ew Yorkers w
ho have been asked to register to vote or to go vote that have a higherrate of contacting their elected officials, as w
ell as those who are m
embers
of associations not engaged in political activities.M
embership in associations, particularly those that have a political orientation,
boosts the overall participation of Latinos, as it does for New
Yorkers at large.A
lthough for Latinos it is only politically active organizations that have a strongereffect on participation, unlike the large sam
ple for which even m
embership in a non-
political association has a strong positive effect on participation, a finding consistentw
ith recent research (Fuchs et al. 2001). In this regard other Latinos would seem
[ 61]
Am
ong Puerto Ricans, the num
ber of variables that show significant coefficients
indicating an effect on participation is more lim
ited. To begin with, the m
odel foroverall participation show
s no statistical significance, indicating the need to reassessits specification. T
he variables that explain the overall participation for the citywide
sample, and even the Latino subsam
ple, are not enough to account for the overallparticipation of Puerto R
icans. For voting, only age has a significant positive effect.N
o other variable, whether socioeconom
ic, political, or social capital variable,show
s significance. In the contacting model, as w
ith the Latino subsample,
non-political associational mem
bership has a modest im
pact. And as w
ith the Latino subsam
ple, but unlike the citywide sam
ple, education also has a positive effect on contacting. A
high school education will increase contacting by one and
one-half activities; two for the college educated.
What these results indicate is that the relatively low
er levels of politicalinvolvem
ent for Puerto Ricans and Latinos in general are the result of their relative
position in Am
erican society, a finding especially true for Puerto Ricans.
Their relative levels of education, em
ployment, incom
e, poverty, citizenship status,m
obility, attraction to major political parties, and m
ost importantly, their associational
mem
bership, all operate to reduce the involvement of Puerto R
icans and Latinosm
ore generally in politics.
Discu
ssion
The evidence presented in this w
ork shows that Puerto R
icans generally exhibitlow
er levels of political participation when com
pared to other groups in the society,large or sm
all. As a group, Puerto R
icans significantly underperform non-H
ispanicw
hites in two crucial form
s of political participation: voting and contactinggovernm
ent officials. The significance of this underperform
ance comes not sim
plyfrom
Puerto Ricans’ low
er rates of turnout or involvement in these m
odes ofparticipation, but also from
the importance these activities have in the political
process in the United States. C
ontacting offers elected and government officials in
general a great deal of information from
constituents, even if the level of pressure on the officials is low. B
y voting in greater proportions, the information non-H
ispanicw
hites convey regarding political preferences, wants, and needs is given w
eight and relevance. T
his weight is reinforced further by the higher rate of contributing
to campaigns (and presum
ably by the greater amounts of those contributions).
If the information elected officials receive from
constituents is not clear when
it is directly conveyed through contacts, it may be clarified or reinforced w
hen it is accom
panied by a monetary contribution and a vote in their favor.
Puerto Ricans m
ay have found alternate avenues to make their preferences,
wants, and needs heard, such as participating in protest dem
onstrations or attendingm
eetings or hearings where political decisions are discussed and decided. T
hey may
have even found ways to com
pensate their limited m
onetary contributions byproviding assistance in-kind, as in volunteering to w
ork for a campaign or candidate.
How
ever, even in these alternative activities, Puerto Ricans are out-perform
ed byothers, as is the case w
ith non-Hispanic blacks and even other Latinos. T
hus, while
Puerto Ricans are able to provide a voice to their dem
ands and needs, theirs are but som
e of many dem
ands from m
any quarters that policymakers have to attend
to when m
aking policy decisions. These dem
ands and needs Puerto Ricans present
policymakers w
ith may coincide and be com
patible with those presented by other
groups in New
York City. B
ut the demands from
one group may also be pitted against
[ 60]
Research and Policy probe largely for individual-level characteristics, but also m
easureto som
e extent system-level variables that are very relevant to participation.
This is the case, for instance, of m
easures of political recruitment and m
obilization,as w
hen respondents are contacted by someone to register to vote or to go vote.
These are m
easures that transcend the individual-level and characterize the system.
Recent w
orks, such as Uhlaner (2001), are m
oving in this direction. Her argum
entthat those persons w
ho feel represented by a representative in the political elite “are m
ore likely to be in a relationship where that representative recruits them
,” and thus m
ore likely to participate, establishes a link between the political system
and the individual (Uhlaner 2001: 3). T
his link may still rem
ain in the realm of
“psychological attachment to politics” since it involves a perception or “sense
of representation” as opposed to actual representation, as with m
easures of politicalefficacy. T
he analysis nevertheless reaches over to the systemic level. M
uch more
illuminating is the w
ork by Leighly (2001), which directly links the political
environment (or context), the decisions that political elites m
ake about whom
to m
obilize, and the participation of individuals.K
nowing that low
er levels of education and income, and low
er rates ofm
embership in association or hom
eownership, w
ill result in consistently lower
turnout rates for Puerto Ricans election after election, does not account, for
example, for the unprecedented Latino turnout in the 2001 m
ayoral primaries
in New
York City. B
ut if these individual-level characteristics are not able to explainspecific instances of participation, they can account for w
hy it is that those who are
mobilized to participate in politics are less likely to be Puerto R
ican or Latino in general. 19Individual-level variables m
ay not be sufficient to determine that
mobilizational appeals to vote m
ay have less of an impact on the turnout of Puerto
Ricans because these tend to concentrate on m
ost likely voters as opposed toinfrequent or new
ly registered voters. Thus, if the few
Puerto Ricans that are
contacted to vote are the ones who are already m
ore likely to vote, then thatm
obilizational appeal may be redundant and less likely to have an im
pact than if it w
ere made to voters w
ho were less likely to vote. Sim
ilarly, even as the level of em
powerm
ent of Puerto Ricans in N
ew York increases, the outcom
e does notnecessarily guarantee greater participation, as the political elites are likely to m
obilizethe support of the bare m
inimum
necessary to secure election, which m
ay just come
from consistent, reliable, and “safe” voters.
To understand these dynamics and the strategic decisions that affect
participation it is important, then, to understand the actors w
ho are involved in it, as w
ell as the system that alternatively constrains or encourages such involvem
ent.T
his work presents a partial explanation. Future research is required to provide
a more com
plete answer.
[ 63]
to have an advantage over Puerto Ricans and even other N
ew Yorkers since their
average involvement in politically active associations is tw
ice as great as theinvolvem
ent of Puerto Ricans and non-H
ispanic whites.
In all, the results of the multivariate analyses show
differences from the inferences
that might have been draw
n from the correlation analyses. W
hereas the pattern of factors that affect political participation that prevail in the cityw
ide sample finds
a resemblance in the patterns evident in the sm
aller Latino and Puerto Rican
subsamples, as observed in the correlation analyses, the m
ultivariate analyses showdistinct patterns of factors that affect the political participation of the differentsam
ples. The variables associated w
ith the CV
M have a m
ore coherent impact on
overall political participation than those proposed by the social or political capitalm
odels exclusively. All three m
odels include “associationist” measures that affect
overall participation, but in addition to these the CV
M (and SE
S) stresses thepsychological engagem
ent variables (i.e., interest and discussion) that also have astrong independent im
pact on participation. The effect of these psychological and
“associationist” variables, however, is not present in the Latino subsam
ple, whose overall
participation is explained by the political capital variables (i.e., citizenship andm
embership in politically active associations), or in the Puerto R
ican subsample.
The pattern differences betw
een explanatory models and sam
ples also arise when
examining voting and contacting. W
hereas “associationist” measures do not seem
to independently explain voting in any of the sam
ples, the SES m
odel, sustained bythe im
pact of education, seems to be m
ore robust in explaining voting in the citywide
sample. H
owever, SE
S variables do not seem to directly account for voting am
ongLatinos in general or Puerto R
icans exclusively. On contacting, m
embership in non-
political association–a social capital variable–underscores participation in all threesam
ples. How
ever, whereas education prom
otes contacting among Latinos and
Puerto Ricans, it does not appear to have an independent effect in the cityw
ide sample.
Co
nclu
sion
The results presented in this w
ork have shown how
the characteristics of individualsaffect their political participation in N
ew York C
ity. It has been shown how
thecharacteristics of individual Puerto R
icans, and Latinos more generally, differ from
those of other New
Yorkers—to an extent that m
akes their involvement in politics
less frequent. Few, if any, of those characteristics, whether socioeconom
ic, life-cycle,or psychological, have an effect w
ithin the Puerto Rican group com
parable to theeffect that they m
ay have on other New
Yorkers. Those sam
e characteristics,how
ever, situate Puerto Ricans in a com
paratively disadvantageous position relativeto other groups in society.
This is indicative, I subm
it, of the extent to which Puerto R
icans are relativelyalienated in a social system
that imparts them
with characteristics that lim
its theirinput in the political arena. B
ut the present analysis has relied only on thesecharacteristics of individuals. W
hat is missing and w
hat requires further research is an analysis of the political environm
ent in which Puerto R
icans and other New
Yorkers live their political lives. Puerto Ricans have not claim
ed the New
Yorkpolitical arena in the sam
e manner other N
ew Yorkers have. W
hy is this? The answ
erto this question lies in further analysis of the politics of place.
This shortcom
ing is comm
on in studies that rely on survey research, even as thesegrow
more sophisticated. Surveys like the Latino N
ational Political Survey or theN
ew York C
ity survey conducted by the Barnard/C
olumbia C
enter for Urban
[ 62]
This variable w
as dichotomized into those w
orking (1= working and part-tim
e) and those not w
orking (0= all else).G
EN
DE
R
Interviewer coded the respondent’s gender. (1= fem
ale; 0= male)
Race/E
thnicty: (Recoded into m
utually exclusive categories from the follow
ing tw
o questions.)R
AC
E
Q : “For statistical purposes, we’d like to ask you, are you w
hite, black, or some other race?”
(1= white; 2= black; 3= H
ispanic/Latino; 4= mixed; 5= O
ther.) H
ISPAN
IC/LAT
INO
Q : “Are you of H
ispanic origin or descent, or not?” (1= yes; 0=no) Puerto Rican:
Q: “Did you say you w
ere or were not Puerto R
ican?” (1= yes; 0=no) L
ENG
TH
OFT
IME
ATAD
DR
ESS:Q: “H
ow long have you lived at your present address?”
(1= ess than six months; 2= six m
onths to one year; 3= one to two years; 4= three to
four years; 5= five to ten years; 6= eleven to twenty years; 7= tw
enty-one to thirty years; 8= m
ore than thirty years.)L
EN
GT
HO
FT
IME
INT
HE
CIT
Y
Q :“How
long have you lived in New
York City?” (1= less than six m
onths; 2= sixm
onths to one year; 3= one to two years; 4= three to four years; 5= five to ten years;
6= eleven to twenty years; 7= tw
enty-one to thirty years; 8= more than thirty years.)
HO
ME
OW
NE
RSH
IP
Dichotom
ized in a single variable from responses to the follow
ing tw
o questions:Q: “D
o you or your family ow
n your own hom
e or pay rent?” (1= rent; 2= own; 3=
neither)Q: “D
o you rent from a private landlord, another fam
ily mem
ber, or from the
Public Housing A
uthority, or do you own your apartm
ent?” (1= private landlord; 2= another fam
ily mem
ber; 3= Public Housing A
uthority; 4= Ow
n apartment.)
CA
TH
OLIC
Q : “What is your religious preference? Is it Protestant, C
atholic, Jewish,
Muslim
, some other religion, or no religion?” (R
esponses were dichotom
ized into 1= C
atholic and 0= All else.)
CIT
IZE
NSH
IP
Q : “Are you a U
nited States citizen?” (1= yes; 0=no)M
EM
BE
RSH
IPIN
LA
BO
RU
NIO
N
Q : “Are you currently a m
ember of a Labor U
nion?” (1= yes; 0=no)O
RG
AN
IZA
TIO
NA
LM
EM
BE
RSH
IP
Respondents w
ere asked about mem
bership in organizations or associations such as neighborhood; professional; religious or church-based; sports clubs; service or fraternal; P
TA
; veteran’s; hobby; civic; literary; and ethnic. T
he organizational mem
bership scale was constructed by adding the num
ber of “yes” responses to each one of these questions. In addition, affirm
ativeresponses to the organizational m
embership questions w
ere followed up w
ith this inquiry: “D
oes this organization (group/club) engage in political activity?” T
he non-politicalorganization mem
bership and politically active organizationm
embership scales w
ere constructed by adding separately the total number
of negative and positive responses, respectively.
[ 65]
AP
PE
ND
IX
De
pe
nd
en
t Va
riab
les
The dependent variables (scales) w
ere constructed by adding the scores to thefollow
ing questions (dumm
y variables):
CO
NT
AC
TIN
GS
CA
LE:
Q:“O
ver the past year, have you contacted a local elected official about some
need or problem?” (1=yes; 0=no)
Q:“In the past year, have you w
ritten a letter to a public official?” (1=yes; 0=no)
VO
TIN
GS
CA
LE:
Q:“A
re you currently registered to vote where you live?” (1=yes; 0=no)
Q:“In 1996, you rem
ember that B
ill Clinton ran for President on the
Dem
ocratic tickets against Bob D
ole for the Republicans and R
oss Perot for the R
eform Party. D
id you vote in that election?” (1=yes; 0=no)Q:
“In 1993, you remem
ber that Rudolph G
iuliani ran for Mayor of N
ew York C
ity against D
avid Dinkins. D
id you vote in that election?” (1=yes; 0=no)
OV
ER
AL
LP
OL
ITIC
AL
PA
RT
ICIPA
TIO
NS
CA
LE:
(This scale includes the variables in the tw
o preceding scales, with the exception of
the voter registration dumm
y variable.)Q:
“In the past year, have you worked as a volunteer for a party or candidate?”
(1=yes; 0=no)Q:
“In the past year, have you contributed money to a political party or candidate?”
(1=yes; 0=no)Q:
“In the past year have you attended a political rally for a candidate?” (1=yes; 0=no)Q:
“In the past year, have you attended a political meeting?” (1=yes; 0=no)
Q:“In the past year, have you attended a fundraiser for a political cause?” (1=yes; 0=no)
Q:“In the past year, have you m
ade calls for a candidate or party?” (1=yes; 0=no)Q:
“In the past year, have you participated in a protest or political demonstration?”
(1=yes; 0=no)
Ind
epen
den
t Variab
les
AG
E
Q :“W
hat is your age?” (in years)E
DU
CA
TIO
N
Q :“W
hat is the highest level of education or schooling you finished?” (no schooling;grades 1 through 12; junior/business college; technical/trade school; first, second,third year of college; college graduate; som
e graduate school; graduate school degree.)IN
CO
ME
Q :“In w
hich of the following ranges does your fam
ily income fall?”(1= $12,000 or
less; 2= $12,001 to $20,000; 3= $20,0001 to $30,000; 4= $30,001 to $40,000; 5= ($40,001 to $50,000; 6= $50,001 to $60,000; 7= $60,001 to $80,000; 8= $80,001to $100,000; 9= $100,001 to $150,000; 10= over $150,000.)E
MPLO
YM
EN
TS
TA
TU
S
Q : “Are you currently w
orking, or are you temporarily laid off, unem
ployed, retired,perm
anently disabled, a homem
aker, a student or what?” (1= w
orking; 2= part-time;
3= laid off; 4= unemployed; 5= retired; 6= disabled; 7= hom
emaker; 8= student.)
[ 64]
in protest activity as well as contacting elected officials. It w
ill not touch upon other activities that attem
pt to shape the policies, the form and/or the selection of governm
ent,such as vandalism
, sabotage, kidnapping, assassinations, riots, insurrections, or other forms
of direct action as the focus of this work is on secular or quotidian participation.
2T
he results for the turnout rate among registered voters, 18 years of age and older,
was: 68.4 percent for non-H
ispanic whites, 65.7 percent for non-H
ispanic blacks, 65.8 percent for non-H
ispanic Asian-Pacific Islanders and 59.4 percent for H
ispanics (D
ay and Gaither 2000).
3C
itizenship rates calculated from C
urrent Population Statistic data for 1998 (D
ay and Gaither 2000).
4T
his conclusion is based on results from statistical analysis that controls for
socioeconomic and dem
ographic characteristics (i.e., education, income, and age);
thus, the disparity from the bivariate results show
n in Table 2.5
The survey w
as conducted by telephone, in English, w
ith respondents chosen randomly
from households selected using a R
DD
procedure, between A
ugust 11 and September 8,
1997. The survey w
as a joint effort of the Barnard/C
olumbia C
enter for Urban R
esearch andPolicy and the H
ispanic Education and Legal Fund O
pinion Research Project.
6Puerto R
icans are United States citizens by birth, w
hether born on the island or inthe U
nited States.7
The original random
sample for the survey w
as 1,123 New
York City residents,
18 years of age and older, with access to a residential telephone. T
his sample w
assupplem
ented by an oversample of Latinos and blacks that yielded a total of 350 black
and 453 Latino respondents.8
The C
urrent Population Report for the 1996 elections asserts that in N
ew York
State, 35 percent of Hispanics, 19 percent of blacks, and 10 percent of w
hites did not vote because they w
ere not citizens (U.S. C
ensus Bureau 1998). T
he slightly higher rate of citizenship am
ong Latinos in the sample m
ay be attributed to the fact that the survey w
as conducted in English, therefore selecting a particular segm
ent of the Hispanic
population of New
York City.
9A
note of caution is in order. The C
urrent Population report for the 1996 electionsshow
s that the percentage of Latinos, 18 years of age or older, who voted in those
elections in New
York State was 29 percent, com
pared to 42 percent for blacks and 55percent for w
hites (U.S. C
ensus Bureau 1998). Studies on voting validation have show
nthat “Latino turnout w
as much low
er than estimates based on self-reporting” (Shaw
et al.2000). A
nother explanation for the higher percentages of Latinos that responded to havevoted m
ay be the fact that the New
York City survey w
as conducted in English, again
selecting out a sample of the Latino population m
ore likely to vote.10
The survey only probed for w
hether a respondent had contributed to a campaign
or candidate, but it did not inquiry as to the amount of the contribution.
11Lack of statistical significance in these proportions m
eans that the differences that exist betw
een groups, while observable, cannot be attributed confidently to the
independent effect of a respondent’s race or ethnicity. Other factors m
ay operate in accounting for the discrepancy, including chance.12
The three m
easures of political participation are additive scales of dichotomous
variables. The scale for overall political participation is m
ade up of voting in the 1993M
ayoral elections, voting in the 1996 Presidential elections, working as a volunteer
for a party or candidate, contributing money to a political party or candidate,
attending a political rally for a candidate, attending a political meeting, attending
a fundraiser for a political cause, making calls for a candidate or party, w
riting a letter to a public official, contacting a local elected official, and participating in a protest or political dem
onstration, all in the past year. This eleven-point scale had an internal
[ 67]
MO
BILIZ
AT
ION
Q : “During the last presidential election did anyone telephone you
about registering to vote or getting out to vote?” (1= yes; 0=no)IN
TE
RE
STIN
PO
LITIC
S
Q : “Some people don’t pay m
uch attention to politics. How
about you–would
you say that you are very much interested in politics, som
ewhat interested,
not much interested, or not at all interested?” (1= not at all interested; 2= not m
uchinterested; 3= som
ewhat interested; 4= very m
uch interested)P
OLIT
ICA
LE
FFICA
CY
Ascale w
as constructed adding the responses to the following three questions:
Q: “Do you agree or disagree: People like m
e don’t have any say about what the
city government does.”
Q: “Do you agree or disagree: Som
etimes city politics and governm
ent seem
so complicated that a person like m
e can’t really understand what’s going on.”
Q: “Do you agree or disagree: I don’t think local officials care m
uch what people
like me think.”
(1=agree; 2= somew
hat agree; 3=somew
hat disagree; 4= disagree)P
OLIT
ICA
LD
ISCU
SSION
Ascale w
as constructed adding the responses of the following three questions:
Q: “How
often do you discuss politics with fam
ily mem
bers: nearly everyday; once or tw
ice a week; less than once a w
eek; or almost never?”
Q: “How
often do you discuss politics with friends: nearly everyday; once or tw
ice a w
eek; less than once a week; or alm
ost never?”Q: “H
ow often do you discuss politics w
ith co-workers: nearly everyday;
once or twice a w
eek; less than once a week; or alm
ost never?”(1= never; 2= alm
ost never; 3= less than once a week; 4= once or tw
ice a week;
5= nearly everyday.)F
AM
ILYM
EM
BE
RSV
OT
E
Q : “Do m
ost mem
bers of your family usually vote?”
(1= yes; 0=no)F
RIE
ND
SVO
TE
Q : “Do m
ost mem
bers of your friends usually vote?” (1= yes; 0=no)C
O-WO
RK
ER
SVO
TE
Q : “Do m
ost mem
bers of your co-workers usually vote?”
(1= yes; 0=no)
AC
KN
OW
LE
DG
EM
EN
TS
I thank Gina Pérez, X
avier Totti, Felipe Pimentel and four anonym
ous reviewers of
CEN
TRO
Journalfor their pointed, insightful and helpful comm
ents.
NO
TE
S1
When discussing political participation, I circum
scribe the concept to activities byw
hich residents of a society attempt to influence their form
of government, how
the peoplew
ho run the government are selected, and/or the policies the governm
ent makes (C
onway
1991; Verba and Nie 1972). T
he definition, while lim
ited to legally sanctioned activities, is m
uch broader than activities that simply involve the election or selection of governing
officials. In other words, the focus on political participation surveyed in this w
ork will go
beyond electoral politics, which is the form
of political involvement that is analyzed m
ostfrequently. It w
ill include non-electoral forms of political participation, such as participation
[ 66]
RE
FE
RE
NC
ES
Arvizu, J. R
. and F. C. G
arcia. 1996. Latino Voting Participation: Explaining and
Differentiating Latino Voter Turnout. H
ispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences18(2): 104–28.
Benm
ayor, R., R
. M. Torruellas, and A
. Juarbe. 1992. Responses to Poverty A
mong Puerto
Rican W
omen: Identity, C
omm
unity and Cultural C
itizenship. New
York:C
entro de Estudios Puertorriqueños.
Brow
ning, R. P., D
. R. M
arshall, and D. H
. Tabb. 1984. Protest Is Not Enough: T
he Struggleof Blacks and H
ispanics for Equality in Urban Politics. B
erkeley: University of
California Press.
Burns, N
., K. H
. Schlozman, and S. Verba. 2001. T
he Private Roots of Public A
ction: Gender,
Equality and Political Participation. Cam
bridge: Harvard U
niversity Press.
Calvo, M
.A. and S. J. R
osenstone. 1989. Hispanic Political Participation. San A
ntonio, TX
:Southw
est Voter Research Institute, Inc.
Casper L. M
. and L. E. B
ass. 1998. Voting and Registration in the E
lection of Novem
ber1996. C
urrent Population Report, U
.S. Census B
ureau, July (P20–504).
Cho, W
. K. T. 1999. N
aturalization, Socialization, Participation: Imm
igrants and (Non-)
Voting. Journal of Politics61(4): 1140–55.
Conw
ay, M. M
. 1991. Political Participation in the United States. W
ashington, DC
:C
ongressional Quarterly, Inc.
Cruz., J. 1998. Identity and Pow
er: Puerto Rican Politics and the C
hallenge of Ethnicity.Philadelphia: Tem
ple University Press.
Day, J. C
. and A. L. G
aither. 2000. Voting and Registration in the E
lection of Novem
ber1998. C
urrent Population Report,U
.S. Census B
ureau, August (P20
–523RV
).
de la Garza, R
.O., L. D
eSipio, F. C. G
arcia, J. Garcia, and A
. Falcón. 1992. Latino Voices:M
exican, Puerto Rican and C
uban Perspectives on Am
erican Politics. Boulder:
Westview
Press.
Diaz, W
. A. 1996. Latino Participation in A
merica: A
ssociational and Political Roles.
Hispanic Journal of Political Science18(20): 154–74.
Estades, R
. 1978. Patrones de participación política de los puertorriqueños en la ciudad de Nueva
York. Río Piedras: E
ditorial Universitaria.
Falcón, A. 1983. Puerto R
ican Political Participation: New
York City and Puerto R
ico. In Tim
e for decision: The U
nited States and Puerto Rico, ed. J. H
eine, 27–53.Landham
, MD
: The N
orth-South Publishing Co.
______. 1984. AH
istory of Puerto Rican Politics in N
ew York C
ity: 1860s to 1945. In Puerto R
ican Politics in Urban A
merica, eds. J. Jennings and M
. Rivera, 15–42.
Westport, C
T: Greenw
ood Press.
______. 1989. Puerto Ricans and the 1989 M
ayoral Election in N
ew York C
ity. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Science11(3): 245–58.
Fitzpatrick, J. 1984. Puerto Rican A
mericans: T
he Meaning of M
igration to the Mainland.
Englew
ood Cliffs, N
J: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Fuchs, E. R
., L. C. M
innite, and R. Y. Shapiro. 2000. Political C
apital and PoliticalParticipation. Paper presented at 2000 A
nnual Meeting of the A
merican
Political Science Association, A
ugust 30 to September 3, W
ashington, DC
.
[ 69]
reliability (Chronbach’s alpha) score of 0.7858, and all factors loaded onto the dim
ension at 0.5 or better. (Protesting had the low
est loading, at 0.481.) This factor explained
32 percent of the variance. The voting scale w
as made up of registering to vote, voting
in the 1993 Mayoral elections, and voting in the 1996 Presidential elections. Its internal
reliability score was 0.8401, and it explained 16 percent of the variance. T
he contacting scaleadded w
riting a letter to a public official and contacting a local elected official about some need
or problem.Its internal reliability score w
as 0.6731, and it explained 9 percent of the variance.13
The average for the voting scale w
as 1.9 activities (with a standard deviation of 1.2
activities. Am
ong non-Hispanic w
hites the number of voting activities w
as 2.2 (sd=1.1); for non-H
ispanic blacks, 1.9 (sd=1.2); for Puerto Ricans, 1.9 (sd=1.1); and for other Latinos,
1.4 (sd=1.3). The average for the contacting scale w
as .5 activities (sd=.74); For non-H
ispanic whites the num
ber of contacting activities was .62 (sd=.8); for non-H
ispanicblacks, .44 (sd=.72); for Puerto R
icans, .37 (sd=.64); and for other Latinos, .42 (sd=.74).14
I want to thank an anonym
ous reviewer of an earlier version of this paper for this
point. Puerto Ricans have reached or exceeded parity in the N
ew York State Legislature
and the New
York City C
ouncil. Puerto Ricans represented 5.5 percent of N
ew York
State’s population and 10 percent of New
York City’s population in 2000. T
here are fourPuerto R
ican state senators of a total of sixty-two (or 6.5 percent), and eight Puerto R
icanm
embers of the state assem
bly of a total of one-hundred-fifty (or 5.3 percent). In addition,there are eight Puerto R
ican New
York City C
ouncil mem
bers out of fifty-one (16 percent).H
owever, Latinos as a group rem
ain underrepresented in these legislative bodies.H
ispanics, including Puerto Ricans, represented 15 percent of the state’s population and
27 percent of New
York City’s population in 2000. T
heir political representation in thestate senate, assem
bly, and city council is 6.5 percent, 6.6 percent, and 20 percent, respectively.15
African A
mericans w
ere, on average, mem
bers of 1.7 organizations; non-Hispanic
whites as w
ell as Latinos, other than Puerto Ricans, belonged to 1.5 organizations; Puerto
Ricans had m
embership in 1.1 organizations. T
hus, Puerto Ricans are significantly less likely
to be mem
bers of associations or organizations (see also de la Garza et al 1992: table 8.2).
16Variables w
hose correlation with overall participation are not statistically significant
in the Puerto Rican subsam
ple, in contrast to the larger Latino subsample and the
citywide sam
ple, are: employm
ent status, citizenship, identification as Catholic,
mem
bership in non-political associations, receiving prompts to vote or register to vote,
political efficacy, and having family m
embers or friends w
ho usually vote. For voting,em
ployment status, C
atholicism, political discussion, and having friends w
ho usually votecarry no statistically significant correlation. For contacting the sam
e is true with
citizenship, being Catholic, m
embership in non-political associations, interest in politics,
and having co-workers w
ho usually vote. 17
Non-H
ispanic white is the base category for the dum
my variable “race/ethnicity”
in the regression equation.18
It has been noted that Latinos have low rates of naturalization. H
igh level of politicaldiscussions leading to low
er rates of voting may be capturing the effect of those Latinos
who are in the process of naturalizing but have yet to becom
e citizens eligible to vote. O
n the other hand, the discussion variables gauge engagement in discussion about
politics in general, without specifying w
hether it refers to Am
erican politics or politicselsew
here. These Latinos m
ay talk about United States politics but m
ay still be unable to vote in the U
nited States because of their imm
igration status.19
Whereas 25 percent of the sam
ple (n=273) was solicited to register to vote or turn out,
only 17 percent of Puerto Ricans (n=28) w
ere mobilized in this fashion, com
pared to 20 percentof other Latinos (n=54), 25 percent of non-H
ispanic blacks (n=80), and 33 percent of non-Hispanic
whites (n=111). In other w
ords, Puerto Ricans w
ere half as likely to be mobilized to vote
or register as non-Hispanic w
hites, a strongly significant finding (Chi-Square= 21.5).
[ 68]
Morris, A
. D., S. J. H
atchett, and R. E
. Brow
n. 1989.The C
ivil Rights M
ovement and Black
Political Socialization. In Political Learning in Adulthood: A
Sourcebook of Theory
and Research, ed. R
. S. Sigel, 272–305. Chicago: T
he University of C
hicago Press.
Nelson, D
.C. 1979. E
thnicity and Socioeconomic Status as Sources of Participation:
The C
ase of Ethnic Political C
ulture. Am
erican Political Science Review
73: 1024–38.
______. 1984. The Political B
ehavior of New
York Puerto Ricans: A
ssimilation or Survival?
In The Puerto R
ican Struggle: Essays on Survival in the United States, eds. C
. Rodriguez,
V. Sanchez Korrol, and J. O
. Alers, 90–110. M
aplewood, N
J: Waterfront Press.
Nie, N
. H., J. Junn, and K
. Stehlik-Barry. 1996. Education and D
emocratic C
itizenship inA
merica. C
hicago: University of C
hicago Press.
Park, D. K
. and C. Vargas-R
amos. 2002. Paradigm
s of Minority and Im
migrant Political
Participation in the United States. In R
esearch in Micropolitics: Political D
ecisionM
aking, Deliberation and Participation, Vol. 6, eds. M
. X. D
elli Carpini, L. H
uddy,and R
. Y. Shapiro,253–93. Greenw
ich, CT: Jai Press, Inc.
Putnam. R
. D. 2000. Bow
ling Alone: T
he Collapse and R
evival of Am
erican Com
munity.
New
York: Simon and Schuster
Rosenstone, S. J. and J. M
. Hansen. 1993. M
obilization, Participation and Dem
ocracy inA
merica. N
ew York: M
acMillan Publishing C
ompany.
Shaw,D., R
. O. de la G
arza, and L. Lee. 2000. Exam
ining Latino Turnout in 1996: AT
hree-State, Validated Survey A
pproach. Am
erican Journal of Political Science44(2): 332–40.
Torruellas, R. M
., R. B
enmayor, A
. Goris, and A
. Juarbe. 1991. Affirm
ing Cultural
Citizenship in the Puerto R
ican Com
munity: C
ritical Literacy and the El B
arrioPopular E
ducation Program. N
ew York: C
entro de Estudios Puertorriqueños
Working Papers Series.
Therrien, M
. and R. R
amirez. 2001. T
he Hispanic Population in the U
nited States. U.S.
Census B
ureau. Current Population R
eport, March (P20
–535).
The W
ashington Post, Kaiser Fam
ily Foundation and Harvard U
niversity. (2000).N
ationalSurvey on Latinos(Conducted June 30
- August 30, 1999). M
enlo Park,C
A.
Uhlaner, C
. J. 1989. Rational Turnout: T
he Neglected R
ole of Groups. A
merican Journal
of Political Science33: 390–422.
______. 2001. The Im
pact of Perceived Representation on Latino Political Participation.
Paper presented at the 2001 Meeting of the A
merican Political Science
Association, A
ugust 29 to September 2, San Francisco, C
A.
U.S. C
ensus Bureau (1998, A
ugust 17). Current Population R
eport(P20–504),
http://ww
w.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/96cps/tab4A
.txt
Vargas-Ram
os, C. 2000. T
he Effects of Return M
igration on Political Participation inPuerto R
ico. Unpublished Ph. D
. dissertation, Colum
bia University.
Verba, S. and N. H
. Nie. 1972. Participation in A
merica. C
hicago: The U
niversity ofC
hicago Press.
Verba, S., K. L. Schlozm
an, H. E
. Brady, and N
. H. N
ie. 1993. Race, E
thnicity andPolitical R
esources: Participation in the United States. British Journal of Political
Science23(4): 453–97.
______. 1995.Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism
in Am
erican Politics. Cam
bridge: Harvard
University Press.
[ 71]
______, R. Y. Shapiro, and L. C
. Minnite. 2001. Social C
apital, Political Participationand the U
rban Com
munity. In Social C
apital and Poor Com
munities, eds. S.
Saegert, J. P. Thom
pson, and M. R
. Warren, 290
–324. New
York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Garcia, F. C
., A. Falcón, and R
. de la Garza. 1996. Introduction: E
thnicity and Politics:Evidence from
the Latino National Political Survey. H
ispanic Journal of PoliticalScience18(20): 91–103.
Garcia, J. A
. 1997. Political Participation: Resources and Involvem
ent among
Latinos in the A
merican Political System
. In Pursuing Power: L
atinos and thePolitical System
, ed. F. C. G
arcia, 44–71. Notre D
ame: U
niversity of Notre
Dam
e Press.
Georges, E
. 1989. Participación política de una población hispana: Los dominicanos en la
ciudad de Nueva York. In D
ominicanos ausentes, Fundación Friedrich E
bert,183–211. Santo D
omingo: Fondo para el avance de las ciencias sociales.
Glazer, N
. and D. P. M
oynihan. 1970. Beyond the Melting Pot. C
ambridge: M
ITPress.
Guzm
án, B. 2001. T
he Hispanic Population. C
ensus 2000 Brief. U.S. C
ensus Bureau,
May (C
2KB
R/01–3).
Handlin, O
. 1959. The N
ewcom
ers: Negroes and Puerto R
icans in a Changing M
etropolis.G
arden City, N
Y: Doubleday and C
o., Inc.
Hardy-Fanta, C
. 1993. Latina Politics, Latino Politics: Gender, C
ulture and PoliticalParticipation in Boston. Philadelphia: Tem
ple University Press.
Hero, R
. E. and A
. G. C
ampbell. 1996. U
nderstanding Latino Political Participation:E
xploring the Evidence from the Latino N
ational Political Survey. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences18(2): 120–41.
Hritzuk, N
. and D. K
. Park. 2000. The Q
uestion of Latino Participation: From an SE
S to a Social Structural E
xplanation. Social Science Quarterly
81(1): 151–66.
Jennings, J. 1984. Conclusion: Puerto R
ican Politics in Urban A
merica–Tow
ardProgressive E
lectoral Activism
. In Puerto Rican Politics in U
rban Am
erica, eds. J. Jennings and M
. Rivera, 139–43. W
estport, CT: G
reenwood Press.
______. 1988. The Puerto R
ican Com
munity: Its Political B
ackground. In Latinos and thePolitical System
, ed. F. C. G
arcia, 65–80. Notre D
ame: U
niversity of Notre D
ame Press.
Jones-Correa, M
. 1998. Between Tw
o Nations. Ithaca: C
ornell University Press.
______, and D. L. Leal. 2000. Political Participation: D
oes Religion M
atter? Paperpresented at 2000 A
nnual Meeting of the A
merican Political Science
Association, A
ugust 30 to September 2, W
ashington, DC
.
Leighly, J. E. 2001. Strength in N
umbers? T
he Political Mobilization of R
acial and EthnicM
inorities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Leighley, J. E. and A
. Vedlitz. 1999. Race, E
thnicity, and Political Participation:C
ompeting M
odels and Contrasting E
xplanations. Journal of Politics61(4):1092–1114.
Lipset, S.M. 1960. Political M
an: The Social Bases of Politics. G
arden City, N
Y: Doubleday.
Montoya, L.J. 2002. G
ender and Citizenship in Latino Political Participation. In Latinos:
Rem
aking Am
erica, eds. M. M
. Suárez-Orozco and M
. M. Páez, 410
–29. Berkeley:
University of C
alifornia Press.
[ 70]