Page 1
Socioeconomic Differences among Blacks in America: Over TimeTrends
Mamadi K. Corra • Casey Borch
Published online: 23 January 2014
� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract Compared to Hispanic and Asian immigrants,
black immigrants in the United States have been consid-
erably less researched, and until very recently, black
African immigrants remained a relatively understudied
group. Using data from three waves of the US Census
(1980, 1990, and 2000), we assess differences in earnings
(and related measures of socioeconomic status) among
male and female African Americans and black immigrants
from Africa and the Caribbean. Results of the analysis
suggest a sizeable earnings advantage for immigrants.
Controlling for a host of human capital variables, however,
reduced the gap between the earnings of African immi-
grants and native-born blacks, although the difference still
remained statistically significant. No such attenuation was
found for immigrants from the Caribbean. The results also
indicate that for females only, the immigrant advantage has
grown over time. Moreover, the findings show that addi-
tional years of work experience in the USA or in foreign
countries correspond to a rather sizable increase in hourly
earnings for both males and females, but, for males, this
effect has grown weaker over time. Finally, men earned
more than women, both overall and within comparison
groups with the gap remaining relatively stable over time.
Keywords African immigrants � Caribbean immigrants �Black Americans � African Americans � Immigration �Black female immigrants � Female immigrants
Introduction
Voluntary immigration from Africa to the United States, at
least in large numbers, is a very recent phenomenon.
Nearly 80 % of the African-born immigrants in the United
States arrived after 1990 and more than 40 % of this pool
arrived in the six years from 2000 to 2005 (Kent 2007).
Today, African immigrants constitute a growing and sig-
nificant component of the US black population. Kent
(2007) reports that before 1980, Africans accounted for just
10 % of the black foreign-born, but in 2005, for example,
nearly one-third of the 2.8 million foreign-born blacks
were born in Africa and that more Africans immigrated to
the United States between 2000 and 2005 than in the pre-
vious decade.1
These ‘‘new’’ immigrants are adding to the increasing
diversity and racial/ethnic transformation that the United
States is currently experiencing. A key question that
immediately comes to mind, however, is how these
immigrants are adapting into the social and economic
M. K. Corra (&)
A-420 Brewster, Department of Sociology, East Carolina
University, Greenville, NC 27858, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
C. Borch
Western Governors University, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
1 According to a Migration Policy Institute report (McCabe 2011),
the top countries of origin for the African-born in 2000 were, in
alphabetical order, Egypt (138,194, or 9.3 % of all African immi-
grants), Ethiopia (148,221, or 9.9 %), Ghana (108,647, or 7.3 %),
Kenya (87,267, or 5.8 %), and Nigeria (209,908, or 14.1 %). Other
countries of birth for African immigrants with high numbers of
immigrants in the United States included, alphabetically: Cameroon
(30,726, or 2.1 %), Cape Verde (32,885, or 2.2 %), Eritrea (23,840, or
1.6 %), Liberia (72,111, or 4.8 %), Morocco (58,283, or 3.9 %),
Sierra Leone (32,467, or 2.2 %), South Africa (82,339, or 5.5 %), and
Sudan (35,821, or 2.4 %).
123
Race Soc Probl (2014) 6:103–119
DOI 10.1007/s12552-014-9114-5
Page 2
fabric of their new country. For African immigrants, the
answer to this question is compounded by the fact that
these immigrants are both immigrants and for many,
black—two socially significant variables shown to influ-
ence immigrant adaptation in the United States.2
Yet, relatively little research has investigated African
immigrants in the United States. With a few exceptions,
early studies defined black immigrants as one homoge-
neous group (Chiswick 1979; Dodoo 1991a, b, c), mainly
focused on Caribbean immigrants (Butcher 1994; Kalmijn
1996; Model 1991, 1995, 2008), or examined small sam-
ples of highly skilled workers (Apraku 1991).
Next to Caribbean immigrants, African immigrants
constitute the largest flow of black immigrants to the
United States (Reid 1986; Takougang 1995; Djamba 1999;
US Immigration and Naturalization Service 1998; Snyder
2002; Zeleza 2002; Kent 2007). Moreover, arguably the
dramatic increase in the flow of African immigrants to the
United States (Kent 2007) points to the growing impor-
tance of this group to a fuller understanding of the signif-
icance of race, ethnicity, and immigrant status in
contemporary America (Dodoo 1997; Dodoo and Takyi
2002; Corra and Kimuna 2009; Borch and Corra 2010).
Understanding the relative migration experience of African
immigrants (as compared with Caribbean immigrants), for
example, can shed light on the attainment process by dis-
tinguishing strictly ‘‘Caribbean’’ from more general
‘‘immigrant’’ effects (Model 1995; Dodoo 1997: 528).
Furthermore, while recent migration data indicate that
women constitute more than 50 % of international migra-
tion to the developed world and, in many cases, outnumber
male migrants (Djamba and Bean 1999; Jasso 2007a, b),
the status of female African immigrants in the United
States remains relatively understudied. According to the
US Census Bureau (2000), there are about 28.4 million
foreign-born people in the United States, and about
14.2 million, or approximately 50.0 %, are female. For the
Caribbean foreign-born, the sex ratio suggests 85 males to
every 100 females. While for the African foreign-born, the
sex ratio suggests 140 males to every 100 females. These
figures, along with the enduring significance of gender in
status attainment in the United States (Oaxaca 1973; Beck
et al. 1980; Hodson and Kaufman 1982; Coverman 1986;
Reskin 1988; Williams 1992; Tomaskovic-Devey 1993;
Budig and England 2001; Kaufman 2002; Cohen and
Huffman 2003; Mishel et al. 2007), suggest that a detailed
comparison of the status of black male and female immi-
grants in the United States is long overdue.
The current study adds to the foregoing literature by
investigating the earnings attainment of male and female
African Americans, African, and Caribbean immigrants in
the United States both cross-sectionally and temporally
using data from three waves of US Census data (1980, 1990
and 2000).3 In doing so, it provides a systematic analysis of
over time trends in earnings and related measures of
socioeconomic attainment among the three groups. To our
knowledge, no previous study has examined over time
trends in socioeconomic attainment among these disparate
groups of blacks in America. Moreover, by including par-
allel analyses for men and women, the paper fully incor-
porates a necessary dimension to a fuller understanding of
the native-born immigrant comparison: the relative place of
black female immigrants (especially female African
immigrants) in the American stratification hierarchy.
In addressing the foregoing issues, the current study has
two related goals. The first is to investigate socioeconomic
differences among blacks in America (African Americans
and African and Caribbean immigrants) over time. How do
African and Caribbean immigrants compare in earnings
and related measures? Where do native-born blacks fit in
this respect? What trends and patterns do the three waves
of the population Censuses reveal?
Our study also incorporates women into the analysis by
providing parallel analyses for men and women. Intersec-
tionality theory and research, for example, suggest that
social categories like gender and race interact in unique
ways that produce outcomes markedly different from these
variables acting independently (Collins 2000a, b; Dugger
1988; Kane 1992; Zinn and Dill 1996). Is the African (or
Caribbean) female encumbered by three strikes: immigrant
status, gender, and geographic/national origin (African/
Caribbean) interacting to place her at the bottom of the
American stratification hierarchy? Or, is gender a more
salient factor such that all three female groups (irrespective
of immigrant or native status) are disadvantaged relative to
their male counterparts? Relatively few studies of this kind
have incorporated male/female comparisons as such.
Because migration theory and research suggest that
immigrants and natives typically exhibit differences in
earnings and related measures of socioeconomic attainment
in the United States (Glazer and Moynihan 1963; Sowell
1978, 1981; Chiswick 1979; Lewis 1983; Foner 1985;
Butcher 1994; Hossfeld 1994; Waters 1994a), we begin
with a review of theoretical explanations of the basis of
such differences. We then describe our study and report its
results. We conclude with some theoretical and practical
implications of our findings and suggestions for future
research.2 The other key variable, of course, is gender (Corra and Kimuna
2009). As noted below, the work of Lopez (2003), for example,
suggests that gender is a key variable that must be taken into account
when examining immigrant adaptation.
3 For the purpose of convenience, the term ‘‘native-born blacks’’ is
used interchangeably with African Americans throughout this paper.
104 Race Soc Probl (2014) 6:103–119
123
Page 3
Socioeconomic Differences among Natives
and Immigrants: Some Theoretical Explanations
Migration theory and research have long-noted significant
socioeconomic differences between US immigrants and
natives (Glazer and Moynihan 1963; Sowell 1978, 1981;
Chiswick 1979; Lewis 1983; Foner 1985; Butcher 1994;
Hossfeld 1994; Waters 1994a). The residual effect of group
membership (once relevant human capital variables are
controlled) has generally been attributed to one of three
phenomena: The selectivity of migration, pre-migration
cultural legacies of the country of origin, or differential
treatment in the host country (hereafter, demand-side). As
discussed in the three subsections to immediately follow,
each of these explanations has some relevance in under-
standing the conditions of the three groups under study
here.
Selectivity of Migration
Proponents of ‘‘Migration selectivity’’ argue that persons
who migrate have markedly different qualities from those
who do not. Migrants (especially economic migrants) were
initially assumed to be more ambitious, diligent, and
motivated than their non-migrant counterparts. Hence, if
traits are evenly distributed, then, on the average, persons
who migrate should exhibit more positive traits than those
in the country of origin and the country of destination.
‘‘Positive selectivity’’ for immigrants, therefore, is attrib-
uted to a human capital advantage said to be traceable to
‘‘migration selectivity’’ (Chiswick 1979; Butcher 1994).
More specifically, ‘‘migration selectivity’’ is the propo-
sition that migrants (especially economic ones) generally
constitute a highly selective group, with positively valued
traits (i.e., qualifications, skills, and motivation) that make
them highly marketable in a competitive labor market. In
turn, these favorable traits are said to translate (after a
period of adjustment) into post-migration success.4 Chis-
wick (1979) estimates the ‘‘overtaking’’ point for immi-
grants at 10–15 years after immigration.
In terms of selectivity, the frequent comparison among
blacks in the United States has been that between Carib-
bean immigrants and native-born blacks (Harrison 1992;
Butcher 1994; Waters 1994a). Both Harrison’s (1992) and
Waters’ (1994a) statistical analyses, for example, show a
relative advantage in attainment for Caribbean immigrants
(as compared with African Americans), a finding they
attribute to migration selectivity.5 More recently, several
quantitative assessments of the relative performance of
first-generation, English-speaking Caribbean immigrants
and African Americans point to selectivity as an important
explanatory factor (Model 1991, 1995, 2008; Butcher
1994; Kalmijn 1996).6
With respect to selectivity, however, relatively few studies
have examined the migration experience of African immi-
grants in the United States (for notable exceptions, see Butcher
1994; Model and Ladipo 1996; Dodoo 1997; Dodoo and
Takyi 2002; Corra and Kimuna 2009; Borch and Corra 2010).
Because migration theory links selectivity to the duration and
costs of migration, a testable hypothesis is that African
immigrants in the United States are an even more positively
selective group than Caribbean immigrants. Furthermore, US
Census data show Africans as one of, if not the most, highly
educated of all immigrant groups in the United States (Butcher
1994; Logan and Deane 2003). Hence, the centrality of edu-
cation as an indicator of potential achievement and economic
mobility in contemporary US society further suggests that
African immigrants should occupy an advantaged position in
the American labor market.
Dodoo (1997) and Corra and Kimuna (2009), however,
found an African male and female immigrant disadvantage,
respectively, relative to Caribbean immigrants. Data reported
by Butcher (1994) similarly indicate an African immigrant
disadvantage, a finding she attributes to the fact that ‘‘many of
the African immigrants are in the United States to attend
graduate school’’ (1994: 268). As Dodoo (1997) rightly
observes, however, Butcher’s (1994) ‘‘employed only’’ com-
parisons also show a disadvantage for African immigrants, a
finding that is inconsistent with that conclusion.
In a comparison with occupational statuses among
minority and majority group members in London and New
York, Model and Ladipo (1996) show that compared to
African Americans and Caribbean immigrants, a sizeable
part of the occupational status disadvantage of Africans in
New York is attributable to discrimination. They then
4 This argument also implies that if men’s migration is more
frequently motivated by economic incentives than women’s, immi-
grant men will be more positively selected. Chiswick (1978), for
example, uses this line of reasoning to explain the slightly greater
earnings advantage of sons whose only foreign-born parent was a
father as compared to those whose only foreign-born parent was a
mother.
5 Notably, one study (Kalmijn 1996) also found generational
differences in attainment between immigrant, second and later-
generation Caribbean blacks; with the later generations generally
indicating higher socioeconomic status. Implicitly, this means, at least
for second and later-generation British Caribbeans, further gains on
African Americans as compared to those gains for the immigrant’s
generation.6 One study (Butcher 1994) uncovered an unexpected but interesting
and important finding that is worth noting: remarkable similarity
between native-born black ‘‘movers’’ (men who had moved out of
their state of birth to another) and black Jamaican and other Caribbean
immigrant men ‘‘on a variety of employment and wage measures’’ (p.
265, also see Model 2008). This finding suggests positive selectivity
for both immigrants and native-born ‘‘movers,’’ suggesting migration
to be the key variable, and not nativity.
Race Soc Probl (2014) 6:103–119 105
123
Page 4
suggest an analysis of earnings as the ‘‘ultimate determi-
nant of living standards’’ (Model and Ladipo 1996: 506).
The current study follows up on this suggestion by exam-
ining differences in earnings and related measures among
blacks in America, but does it both cross-sectionally and
temporally so as to examine over time trends.
A more recent counter proposition to positive selectivity
for African immigrants is that recent immigrant flows from
developing countries to the United States, relative to earlier
ones, are of a poorer stock (Borjas 1985a, b). Hence, such
immigrants are said to have a reduced chance of success in
the US labor market. Proponents of this argument (negative
selectivity for recent immigrants) point to the 1965 ‘‘family
reunification and refugee’’ act, the US immigration law that
encouraged family and refugee-based migrations, as the
impetus to such low-quality immigrant flows (Borjas 1985a,
b). Borjas, for instance, points to the lower ‘‘duration of stay
effects’’ on more recent immigrant groups as an indicator of
waning immigrant quality. Others, however, argue that once
relevant measures are controlled, the duration of stay vari-
able can be a good indicator of assimilation.
More specifically, the works of Roy (1951) and Borjas
(1987) suggest negative selectivity for African immigrants
due to Africa’s economic stagnation, relative high unem-
ployment and inequality (the economically unsuccessful
being those forced to migrate). Borjas (1987), for instance,
links immigrant quality to differences in the level of
income inequality in host as compared to country of origin.
According to Borjas, immigrants will come from the less
industrious when income inequality is greater at origin than
destination and come from the more industrious when
income inequality is lower at origin than destination.
Implicitly, this means negative selectivity for black African
immigrants to the United States.
Dodoo (1997), however, argues that while those very
adverse economic conditions are the ‘‘push’’ factors of
massive African emigration, they have led to a phenomenon
widely known as the ‘‘brain drain’’—the outflow of large
numbers of highly skilled, achievement-oriented Africans
from Africa to the developed world. Hence, rather than
negative selectivity, Dodoo argues, such economic stagna-
tion should lead to positive African immigrant selectivity.
The current study has the potential of adjudicating these
issues in that it not only examines socioeconomic differ-
ences among the three groups; it also does this both cross-
sectionally and temporally. By providing parallel analyses
for men and women, the study also more fully accounts for
gender effects over time.
The Cultural Argument
Proponents of the cultural perspective pose that migrating
groups differ markedly in their cultural value-orientations.
Some cultures nurture individualism, industriousness,
commercialism, and the like, while others foster collec-
tivism, familism, etc. These differing cultural value-ori-
entations are said to manifest themselves into differing
attitudes toward family, education, work, and relocation
itself (Greeley 1976; Sowell 1994).
Thus, differing pre-migration cultural value-orientations
among groups as such are proposed to be crucial determi-
nants of post-migration group outcomes. Individuals with
pre-migration cultural values that emphasize commercially
useful traits, the argument goes, succeed more than those
that do not. Hence, group post-migration outcomes are said
to be attributable to pre-migration cultural legacies.
Differences in socioeconomic attainment between black
immigrants and native-born blacks have accordingly been
attributed to cultural factors, both historical and contem-
porary, which are said to favor immigrant success (Glazer
and Moynihan 1963; Sowell 1978, 1981; Lewis 1983). The
relative ‘‘success’’ of Caribbean immigrants in the US
labor market, for example, has been attributed by some to a
purported greater achievement orientation and work ethic
ascribed to socialization in a favorable Caribbean cultural
environment—one in which they were the racial majority.
With respect to Caribbean immigrants and native blacks,
Sowell (1978) provides an early statement of this argu-
ment. Sowell (1978) observed that Caribbean and native-
born blacks exhibited differing work ethics, a difference,
the route of which he attributed to differences between the
American and Caribbean systems of slavery. More spe-
cifically, Sowell (1978) contended that slaves in the
Caribbean did not experience strong economic competition
from a large white lower class as did their counterparts in
the American South. Hence, he argued that Caribbean
slaves had early socialization into a ‘‘spirit of capitalism’’
that allowed for a greater opportunity for economic ini-
tiative than slaves in the American South (1978:46).
Shortly after the publication of his essay, however, a
growing literature began to develop that challenged So-
well’s findings. Aggregate national statistics suggest that
Caribbean-born blacks tend to work more hours, hold more
prestigious jobs, and earn more than native-born blacks,
but once controls are introduced for educational attainment
and for local labor market conditions, the Caribbean
advantage diminishes, often to the point of statistical
insignificance (Borjas and Bronars 1991; Model 1991,
1995, 2008; Butcher 1994; Kalmijn 1996; Model and
Ladipo 1996).7
7 Nevertheless, an important and lasting contribution of Sowell’s
(1978) essay is that it emphasized another dimension to the study of
race and ethnicity in the United States that, until then, remained
relatively under-studied: black immigrants as a natural comparison
group to native-born blacks.
106 Race Soc Probl (2014) 6:103–119
123
Page 5
A counter-cultural proposition emphasizes differences
between African cultures and Western culture and holds
that such differences make the transition to the US or
Europe more difficult for African immigrants (than, say,
the descendants of ex-slaves from the Caribbean, whose
ancestors were stripped of their African heritage and forced
to accept Western languages and religion). (We are
indebted to a previous reviewer of a now published paper
for bringing this important distinction to our attention).
Following this proposition, African immigrants in the
United States should be disadvantaged rather than advan-
taged by their cultural traditions.
Whether or not black African immigrants are advan-
taged or disadvantaged by their cultural attributes, there-
fore, remains a contested issue. Is the socioeconomic
attainment of black African immigrants in the United
States enhanced by their cultural traditions? Or, is it hin-
dered by that tradition? The reasons given for the success
of Caribbean immigrants in the United States—being
socialized in a society where they were the racial majority
and one free of the legacies of a US style slavery—suggest
that African immigrants should be as likely as Caribbean
immigrants to succeed in the US labor market. On the other
hand, the counterproposition that African cultures mark-
edly differ from Western culture suggests that Africans
might be disadvantaged in the US labor market by their
cultural traditions.
Demand-side Arguments
Demand-side arguments attribute group differences in
attainment to differential treatment (discrimination) in the
host country. Some groups are more desirable (or perhaps
just more welcome) to members of the host country and
others are not. Hence, it is the differential treatment of
members of groups as such that determine group outcomes.
Queuing theory, for example, conceives the labor mar-
ket as an imaginary line of potential workers, arranged in
such a way that members of the most desirable group are at
the beginning of the queue and members of the least
desirable are at the end (Hodge 1973; Lieberson 1980).
Desirability may be a function of a number of social
attributes, including race, nativity, and national origin.
Gender is not a factor in the queue because men and
women are assumed to occupy separate queues. ‘‘Queuing,
or the relative position a group holds in the eyes of
employers, comes to the fore when otherwise similar
workers compete for the same reward. Employers are
expected to give first preference to members of the group
they esteem the most, moving down the queue as the
supply of more favored groups dwindles … In a single
labor market at a single moment in time, queuing is simply
a way of describing the amount of discrimination or
favoritism particular groups encounter’’ (Model 1997:
540).
Model and Ladipo (1996), for example, use Queuing
theory to explain differences in attainment between African
Americans and Puerto Ricans, on one hand, and non-white
immigrants, on the other. They argue that the presence of
large numbers of African Americans and Puerto Ricans in
the New York labor market allows for the relegation of
those two minority groups to the bottom of the employment
queue and the upgrading of non-white immigrants above
them.
From the discrimination/demand-side perspective, then,
the so-called Caribbean immigrant success in the US labor
market is assumed to be due to a purported perception that
whites and employers view immigrants as persons with
‘‘good’’ work ethics (Foner 1985; Hossfeld 1994; Waters
1994a). For example, evidence revealed in Waters’ (1994b)
study suggests that immigrants find ways, other than their
accents, to communicate their foreign heritage to employ-
ers because of this perceived employer preference of
immigrant workers (also see Foner 1985; Kasinitz 1992).
An important question that is yet to be fully addressed is
whether or not Africans also benefit from this purported
favorable impression of immigrants. Like their native-born
counterparts, there is some evidence that black African
immigrants face substantial discrimination in the US labor
market (Scroggins 1989; Takougang 1995; Apraku 1996;
Kposowa 2002). Over half a century ago, Du Bois (1962)
observed that the primary bases of prejudice toward Afri-
cans are degrading assumptions and stereotypes held by
people of European descent. The ubiquity of negative
portrayals of Africa in academic, political, media, and
other such entities may also serve to undermine the valu-
ation of Africans in the United States (Hawk 1992; Zaffiro
1992; Mpanya 1995). While the extent of such discrimi-
nation is yet to be known, ‘‘it is not inconceivable that
Africans may be received differently, and perhaps less
favorably, than both Caribbean and American blacks’’
(Dodoo 1997: 530).
Context of Reception Hypothesis
Recent approaches to the study of migration emphasize the
‘‘context of reception’’ to the host society and the modes of
incorporation of different groups into its labor market
(Portes and Borocz 1989; Portes and Rumbaut 2001, 2006).
By ‘‘context of reception,’’ it is meant (1) differential
(positive, negative, or neutral) state policies directed to
specific immigrant groups; (2) favorable or unfavorable
public opinion toward immigrating groups (i.e., public
reactions to the increased presence of African/Caribbean
immigrants); and (3) the presence or absence of an ethnic
Race Soc Probl (2014) 6:103–119 107
123
Page 6
community in the host country/destination that helps in the
adaptation process.
Accordingly, the context within which different immi-
grant groups find themselves provides the condition that
either enhances or impedes labor market incorporation. Post-
migration outcomes, therefore, are said to be shaped by the
interaction of the numerous elements that constitute an
immigrant group’s ‘‘context of reception.’’ An area’s ‘‘con-
text of reception’’ for differing groups, for example, can be
measured by controlling for region (Portes and Bach 1985).
The US labor market, for example, may be more or less
receptive to one immigrant group (Caribbean/African) than
the other. Similarly, regional differences in earnings and
related measures of socioeconomic status (especially for
those with similar human capital) imply more or less
favorable ‘‘receptions’’ (Borch and Corra 2010).
Lopez’s more recent analysis (2003) extends this work
by closely examining the ‘‘raced’’ and ‘‘gendered’’ pro-
cesses of immigrant adaptation. Her work suggests that
race and gender are important dimensions to a fuller
understanding of immigrant adaptation (also see Borch and
Corra 2010). Gender differences in socioeconomic attain-
ment among immigrants, for example, have been attributed
to a purported greater selectivity among immigrant men.
Chiswick (1978), for example, uses this line of reasoning to
explain the slightly greater earnings advantage of sons
whose only foreign-born parent was a father as compared
to those whose only foreign-born parent was a mother.
Accordingly, a testable hypothesis is that males of the two
immigrant groups will exhibit greater levels of socioeco-
nomic measures than their female counterparts.
Intersectionality Explanations
It has long been argued that the interaction of race and
gender creates exclusive social categories with unique his-
tories and experiences (Collins 2000a, b; Dugger 1988;
Kane 1992; Zinn and Dill 1996). More generally, inter-
sectionality theorists argue that categorical variables like
race, gender, and social class interact on multiple and often
simultaneous levels. Such multiple interactions are said to
produce systems of inequality that reflect ‘‘intersections’’ of
these variables (Crenshaw 1991; Collins 2000a, b; Browne
and Misra 2003; Cho et al. 2013; McCall 2001, 2005a, b).
It is in this context that Dugger (1988: 425) makes the
poignant observation that: ‘‘For black women, racism and
sexism should be viewed as combining in such a way that
they create a distinct social location rather than an additive
form of ‘double disadvantage.’’’ Here, the argument is that
rather than acting independently, these variables frequently
act jointly to produce outcomes that are unique and dif-
ferent from their independent effects. Intersectionality, as
such, is ‘‘the view that women experience oppression in
varying configurations and in varying degrees of intensity’’
(Ritzer 2007: 204).
In a similar manner, immigrant status, gender, and
geographic/national origin (African/Caribbean/native-
born) may combine in unique ways that differentially
influence attainment among the groups studied here. It is
not inconceivable, for example, that African (or Caribbean)
females are encumbered by immigrant status, gender, and
geographic/national origin (African/Caribbean) interacting
to place them at the bottom of the American stratification
hierarchy. Alternatively, it may be the case that such
interactions actually negatively affect African American
women more than females of the two immigrant groups.
Data and Methods
The data used in this paper are drawn from three waves of
the US population census (1980, 1990, and 2000).8 The
sample consists of 993,846 blacks from the 5 % Integrated
Public Use Microdata Samples (IPUMS).9 The sample was
restricted to individuals, who were employed at least part
time (which we defined as at least 50 h per year), aged 25
to 64, were not enrolled in school, and reported positive
annual earnings. Following previous studies (Dodoo 1997;
Dodoo and Takyi 2002; Corra and Kimuna 2009), the
selected sample of African and Caribbean immigrants
included those who identified themselves by race as
‘‘black’’ and recorded their birthplace in any of the African
or Caribbean countries in the census documents. The
selection of African Americans was restricted to individ-
uals, who identified themselves as ‘‘black,’’ were born in
the United States, and who did not report ancestral links to
any other country but the United States.10 With the
8 As of the date of the preparation of this manuscript, IPUMS data for
2010 Census was not available. Analysis of ACS (American
Community Survey) data for 2001–2010 (not reported here, but
available upon request), however, revealed patterns that were very
similar to those reported below.9 For a complete description of the IPUMS dataset (including sample
and variable descriptions, data compilation and storage), see the
IPUMS website at http://www.ipums.org.10 We avoid the frequently followed practice of randomly selecting
10 % of the African American sample for analysis (Dodoo 1997;
Dodoo and Takyi 2002; Model 1991; Corra and Kimuna 2009),
because, by sampling only 10 % of the native-born African Amer-
icans, but using all cases from Africa and from the Caribbean, most
regression coefficients are almost certainly misleading because the
weight of native African Americans on these coefficients is reduced.
Also, the reliability (the precision) of the findings is almost certainly
reduced by cutting back on the sample size. Only the interaction
between holding a college degree and place of origin overcomes the
first problem (regression coefficients), but the problem of losing
precision remains. Hence, we run regression models on the full
African American sample.
108 Race Soc Probl (2014) 6:103–119
123
Page 7
foregoing restrictions, the sample consists of 935,938
African Americans (94.2 % of the total sample), 12,210
African immigrants (1.2 % of the sample), and 45,698
Caribbean immigrants (4.6 % of the total sample). For a
distribution of immigrants by country, see Table 1. Note
that figures are given for African and Caribbean countries
that sent the majority of immigrants in our sample to the
US, with the rest included in categories of ‘‘other.’’
Variables
The variables used in the analysis assess variations in
hourly earnings, with the main explanatory variable being
region of origin. We created dummy variables for those
from Africa and the Caribbean. As our reference category,
we used a dummy for African Americans.
Because initial statistical tests revealed the income
measure to be somewhat skewed, we attempt to minimize
the effect of skewness by logging hourly earnings. The
independent variables indicating human capital are—edu-
cational attainment (reference group = those with only a
high school degree), labor market experience (age minus
number of years in school minus 5; and its squared term—
for a similar computation, see Borch and Corra 2010;
Dodoo 1997; Mincer 1974), occupation (reference
group = labor and farming), English language proficiency
(reference group = those who speak English ‘‘very good’’
or ‘‘only’’),11 citizenship (reference group = non-citizen),
and a dummy variable that measures whether or not
respondents had a degree from a university outside the US
(see Table 2 below). Since the census data do not include a
measure for where a respondent’s college degree was
earned, we calculated a crude proxy based on the following
three criteria: (1) The immigrant is a college graduate; (2)
the immigrant must have more years of work experience
than years in the US; and (3) the immigrant must have
immigrated as an adult.
Variables that measure other demographic factors
shown to influence attainment (Borch and Corra 2010;
Butcher 1994; Corra and Kimuna 2009; Dodoo 1991a, b, c,
d, 1997; Dodoo and Takyi 2002; Kalmijn 1996; Model
1991, 1995, 2008; Roos 1990) include a variable delin-
eating respondents’ current US region of residence (refer-
ence group = West region),12 marital status (reference
group = non-married), and childhood immigration (refer-
ence group = native-born). Age of immigration may be a
more important predictor of earnings success than year of
immigration. That is, one who immigrates as a child has a
much greater chance of assimilating into US culture and
finding work, than those who immigrated as an adult even
though they both may have immigrated in the same year.
We also control for age (in our work experience calcula-
tions), cohort (a dummy variable for coming to the US
before age 16), and dummy variables for year (refer-
ence = 2000) to attenuate the confounding effects of age,
period, and cohort effects.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Table 2 presents averages for earnings and related mea-
sures across time and for each of the broadly defined
comparison groups (African American, African, and
Caribbean) separated by sex.13 As reported, the corre-
sponding means of annual wage or salary earnings reveal
some differences in the earnings of the three groups
especially among males. The mean annual earnings of
African American men are nearly $30,000, which is less
than that of African (over $35,200) and Caribbean (about
$31,500) men, but more than that of any of the female
Table 1 Number of African and Caribbean immigrants by country of
origin
Country N
Nigeria 3,008
Ethiopia 1,354
Ghana 1,201
Central Africa 745
Other Africana 5,902
Jamaica 18,844
Haiti 11,299
West Indies 2,573
Trinidad and Tobago 2,547
Other Caribbeana 10,435
Total 57,908
a These categories also include respondents who claimed ‘‘African’’
or ‘‘Caribbean,’’ but did not specify a nation of origin
11 English proficiency or the ability to understand and speak English
well varies across immigrant groups. It should be noted that this
variable is self-reported in the census documents, thus, it is a
subjective measure of the ability to understand and speak the English
language well.
12 Ideally, one would want to control for labor market conditions that
might affect earnings. However, our data were not conducive to this
type of analysis. As a rather weak proxy, we computed three-way
interaction terms for group of origin, region, and urban residence and
entered them into the models. The results were not significant across
any of the groups and their inclusion did not change the substantive
conclusions presented below. We also used state of residence instead
of region as the location control and the results were the same.13 We ran additional models and found that men earned more than
women, both overall and within comparison groups.
Race Soc Probl (2014) 6:103–119 109
123
Page 8
groups. A one-way ANOVA showed that at least one of
these values was significantly different from the others
(F[2,469443] = 236.6, p \ .001); subsequent tests showed
that the mean annual earnings for Africans were signifi-
cantly higher than that of either African Americans or
Caribbeans. Likewise, on average, African American
women earned less than their immigrant counterparts.
African American women earned about $22,200, while
African women earned about $25,400 and Caribbean
women earned slightly more than that at about $25,500.
Again, the one-way ANOVA found at least one significant
difference (F[2,524397] = 330.7, p \ .001), with African
Table 2 Descriptive statistics for all variables in the models by ethnicity and sex
African American African Caribbean
Male Female Male Female Male Female
Work
Annual
earnings
29,677.0
(24,363.7)
22,234.8
(19,544.4)
35,163.6
(32,033.1)
25,433.4
(22,767.9)
31,507.0
(28,066.2)
25,464.1
(21,317.2)
Hourly earnings 17.4 (35.0) 14.7 (34.4) 19.6 (26.7) 16.9 (34.8) 18.2 (30.6) 16.2 (26.8)
Hours worked 1,920.7 (700.1) 1,714.5 (688.8) 1,986.4 (739.1) 1,730.3 (729.1) 1,936.3 (670.7) 1,780.8 (680.5)
Human cap (%)
\HS 27.4 20.8 8.2 12.8 31.5 27.0
HS graduate 34.2 33.1 14.5 23.3 29.1 29.5
Some college 25.5 29.7 23.9 28.3 23.3 26.1
College grad. 12.9 16.4 53.4 35.6 16.2 17.4
Foreign degree 0.0 0.0 37.0 23.7 7.2 8.4
US degree 12.9 16.4 16.3 11.9 9.0 8.9
Citizenship (%)
US-born 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Nat. citizen 0.0 0.0 37.7 33.6 45.5 50.7
Non-citizen 0.0 0.0 62.3 66.4 54.5 49.3
Occupation (%)
Management 25.6 44.4 46.7 45.1 28.1 41.1
Service 21.5 37.8 26.7 46.6 26.5 50.7
Labor and Farm 52.9 17.8 26.5 8.3 45.4 8.2
Years of exp.
Total 24.0 (10.5) 23.6 (10.3) 20.5 (8.2) 20.1 (8.5) 24.9 (10.1) 25.1 (10.3)
Foreign exp. 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 8.3 (7.8) 9.1 (8.3) 10.4 (9.4) 10.3 (9.6)
US experience 24.0 (10.5) 23.6 (10.3) 12.2 (7.8) 11.0 (7.5) 14.4 (8.5) 14.8 (8.5)
English (%)
None 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.7
Poor 0.3 0.3 2.6 4.5 5.2 5.2
Good 0.4 0.3 14.5 16.6 11.4 9.3
Only/well 99.3 99.4 82.7 78.5 82.9 84.8
Location (%)
Northern region 13.9 14.3 30.2 32.9 56.5 62.6
Midwest region 18.7 18.6 13.2 10.8 3.1 2.7
Southern region 57.4 58.4 41.3 41.8 36.4 31.3
Western region 10.0 8.7 15.2 14.5 3.9 3.4
Age immig. (%)
Native 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
\16 0.0 0.0 7.6 10.4 15.8 17.6
Other
Married (%) 59.4 43.2 65.5 61.1 68.4 51.1
N 440,185 495,753 7,649 4,561 21,612 24,086
110 Race Soc Probl (2014) 6:103–119
123
Page 9
American women averaging significantly less annual
earnings than immigrant women from Africa or the
Caribbean. These figures lend some support to the claim
that some groups of immigrant blacks earn more than
native-born blacks.
The higher mean annual earnings of the two immigrant
groups over African Americans, however, may be associ-
ated with higher levels of other characteristics associated
with greater labor market success (especially for African
immigrants). Consistent with previous studies (Jasso
2007a, b), relative to African Americans, African immi-
grants have higher educational attainment (at all levels of
education) and are more likely to be married. The most
notable difference is in the percentages of college degree
holders. The percentage of African immigrants who are
college graduates was about 53 %, while Caribbean and
African American percentages were much lower at about
15 %. This pattern of differences holds for female immi-
grants as well.
Theoretically, the finding that the two immigrant groups,
especially African immigrants, exhibit higher levels of
education than native-born blacks is most consistent with
selectivity theory. Recalling from the theoretical review
section above, immigrant ‘‘positive selectivity’’ is the
proposition that transnational migrants (especially eco-
nomic ones) generally constitute a highly selective group,
with positively valued traits (i.e., qualifications, skills, and
motivation) that make them decidedly marketable in a
competitive labor market (Chiswick 1979; Butcher 1994).
Consistent with this proposition, figures in Table 2 indicate
that the two immigrant groups are advantaged at every level
of education. Whether that advantage translates into higher
earnings, however, remains to be seen. Table 2 also shows
African and Caribbean immigrants have higher averages for
income, relative to native-born blacks. In the section
immediately to follow, we address the issue of whether or
not these earnings differences are statistically significant,
once relevant earnings-related measures are controlled.
It might also be recalled from the theoretical review
section that selectivity theory implies positive selectivity
for immigrants both at the point of origin and at the point
of destination. That is to say, immigrants (especially those
who immigrate for economic reasons) are assumed to be
more ambitious, diligent, and motivated than non-immi-
grants. Accordingly, if traits are evenly distributed, then,
on the average, persons who migrate should exhibit more
positive traits than non-emigrants, as well as those at points
of destination.
Census data, of course, do not include any measure of
the social standings of immigrants prior to emigration, so
we have no way of capturing the social standings of per-
sons at their countries of origin.
Looking at educational information displayed in
Table 2, however, some tentative observations can be
made (see especially, the comparison of college degrees
earned in the US and those earned abroad). As can be seen
in Table 2, a sizeable proportion of the two immigrant
groups attained a college degree prior to immigration. For
example, Table 2 shows that 53.4 and 35.6 % of African
immigrant males and females, respectively, had a college
degree. Of these percentages, 37 and 23.7 % of African
male and female college degree holders, respectively,
earned their degrees outside the United States. For Carib-
bean immigrants, the figures for foreign degrees are 7.2 %
of the 16.2 % male college degree holders and 8.4 % of the
17.4 % female college degree holders. These figures are
very suggestive of these immigrants being a highly selected
group, even in their countries of origin.
Compared to the other groups, the lower number of
years of work experience for African immigrants (about
20.2 years) may be explained by the higher percentage of
college degree holders. For example, Caribbean immi-
grants have about 5 years of work experience advantage
over their African immigrant counterparts, and African
Americans have about 4 years of work experience
advantage, but both groups are less likely to be college
graduates.
Furthermore, researchers have found that immigrants
differ from native-born workers in region of residence
(Borjas and Bronars 1991; Sowell 1978). About 60 % of
African Americans and about 40 % of African and Carib-
bean immigrants live in the Southern region of the United
States. It may be argued that since more African Americans
live in the low-wage Southern region, the apparent earnings
differences between African Americans and immigrant
blacks may be due to labor market conditions in the region
of residence (more than 55 % of Caribbeans reside in the
Northern region, which has a much higher earnings base
than does the Southern region).
Moreover, Table 2 indicates that consistent with previ-
ous analyses (Djamba and Bean 1999; Jasso 2007a, b),
there is a relatively large difference in the proportion of
females in the samples. African immigrants are mostly
male, with only 38 % female, while a higher percentage
Caribbeans were female (53 %). Data (not shown) also
reveal that only about 3 % of the African immigrants and
nearly 8 % of the Caribbean immigrants were admitted into
the United States prior to 1965. However, by 1974, only
about 20 % of Africans had immigrated, but about 40 % of
Caribbeans in our sample were in the US. Finally, during
the period 1991–2000, about 26 % of Africans in our
sample came to the US, compared with just over 9 % for
Caribbeans. This indicates that Africans are the more
recently arriving immigrant group.
Race Soc Probl (2014) 6:103–119 111
123
Page 10
Multivariate Analysis
In Table 3, we present the results from ordinary least
squares (OLS) regression models exploring the logged
hourly earnings of the comparison groups. The results are
delineated by sex, which means that we ran separate
models for males and females. Given our focus, we could
have used a two-way interaction between comparison
group and sex. However, after running this more complex
model, we found little substantive difference to those
separated by sex.
Table 3 shows unstandardized parameter estimates and
fit statistics from six different models. For males and
females, Model 1 presents the findings from OLS regres-
sion models that address one of the key questions of this
research paper—whether or not black immigrants from
Africa or the Caribbean earn more per hour than native-
born African Americans. Model 2 adds our demographic
control variables, and Model 3 includes terms that examine
the association between human capital and earnings.
In the first models (M1 of Table 3), we regress our two
immigrant variables (African American is the reference
Table 3 Results from models predicting logged hourly earnings by sex
Male Female
M1 M2 M3 M1 M2 M3
Intercept 2.687*** 2.618*** 2.250*** 2.566*** 2.548*** 2.217***
1980 -0.037*** -0.083*** -0.024*** -0.161*** -0.189*** -0.144***
1990 -0.065*** -0.072*** -0.052*** -0.110*** -0.113*** -0.131***
Demographics
African 0.103*** 0.124*** 0.034** 0.085*** 0.154*** 0.085***
Caribbean 0.044*** 0.047*** 0.072*** 0.094*** 0.127*** 0.099***
Immigrated \16 0.087*** -0.019 0.152*** -0.005
Married 0.219*** 0.147*** 0.067*** 0.018***
Region
North -0.010** 0.025*** 0.013*** 0.045***
Midwest -0.022*** 0.017*** -0.079*** -0.037***
South -0.221*** -0.149*** -0.243*** -0.169***
Human capital
Citizenship 0.038*** 0.016*
English ability
No English -0.037 -0.149***
Poor English -0.035** -0.069***
Good English -0.054*** -0.036***
Occupation
Management 0.054*** 0.116***
Service -0.149*** -0.114***
Education
Less than HS -0.123*** -0.115***
Some college 0.102*** 0.118***
US degree 0.382*** 0.471***
Foreign degree 0.286*** 0.342***
Work experience
US experience 0.025*** 0.023***
US exp. sq (*10) -0.003*** -0.003***
Foreign experience 0.007** 0.007***
Foreign exp. sq (*10) -0.001** -0.001***
Adjusted R2 0.040 0.076 0.184 0.014 0.033 0.150
df 6 15 27 5 15 27
N 469,446 469,446 469,446 524,400 524,400 524,400
Unstandardized coefficients: * p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001
112 Race Soc Probl (2014) 6:103–119
123
Page 11
group) and year dummy variables on logged hourly earn-
ings. We present this model to set the baseline difference in
earnings between the groups before adding control variables
pertaining to demographic and human capital factors.14
The results show a fairly sizable earnings gap between
the earnings of immigrants and native-born blacks, and this
is true for both sexes.15 Male immigrants from Africa
earned about (e.103 - 1)*100 = 10.8 % more per hour
than African Americans, while immigrants from the
Caribbean earned about (e.044 - 1)*100 = 4.5 % more per
hour. Likewise, female immigrants from Africa earned
about (e.085 - 1)*100 = 8.9 % more per hour than native-
born blacks, while Caribbean immigrants earned about
(e.094 - 1)*100 = 9.8 % more per hour.
In Model 2, we add demographic control variables to the
models with only year dummies and dummies for the two
immigrant groups. The addition of these new variables,
dummies for marital status (married = 1), childhood
immigration (child = 1), and region (reference group =
West), represents a significant improvement in model fit. For
males and females, the F statistics show F[11,469434] =
3,657.9, p \ .001 and F[11,524388] = 878.7, p \ .001,
respectively. These models still imply that immigrants earn
significantly more per hour than African Americans, net
of the other predictors. This reinforces the results of
Model 1. The results also show that married men earn about
(e.219 - 1)*100 = 24.5 % more per hour than single men.
This is a common empirical finding (e.g., Korenman and
Neumark 1991). Our results show that the effect of marriage
for females, although significantly greater than zero, is only
about (e.067 - 1)*100 = 6.9 % more per hour than single
women. In addition, those who reside in the Western region
earn significantly more per hour than those who live in nearly
all other regions. And, across groups, those who immigrated
as children or who were born in the US earned significantly
more per hour than those who immigrated later in life.
The third model (M3) adds controls for human capital—
citizenship, English ability, occupation, education, and
work experience. Again, the addition of these variables
represents a significant improvement in model fit for both
sexes. Controlling for human capital reduced the significant
gap between the earnings of African immigrants and
native-born blacks (especially among males); there was no
such attenuation in the effects for immigrants from the
Caribbean (See below).16 In the model for males, African
immigrants earn about (e.034 - 1)*100 = 3.5 % more than
African American males, net of the effects of demographic
and human capital variables. In Model 2, Africans were
predicted to earn about 13.2 % more. This is a reduction of
about 69 %. For females, the gap in earnings differential
between African Americans and African immigrants fell
from about (e.154 - 1)*100 = 16.6 % favoring immigrants
in Model 2 to about (e.085 - 1)*100 = 8.9 % in Model 3.
This reduction is about 50 %.
Considering the human capital predictors, across groups,
naturalized citizens earned more per hour than non-citi-
zens, those who speak English well earned more per hour,
those with more education earned more, and those with a
college degree (regardless if the degree came from a school
in the US or elsewhere) earned more per hour than those
without such characteristics.
The effects of work experience were non-linear. That is,
additional years of work experience (either in the US or
elsewhere) represent an increase in earnings, but this effect
declines as more years of experience are realized. There-
fore, the effect takes an inverted U form.
A t test of betas shows that the earnings of Caribbeans is
higher than that of Africans—but only for males (males =
0.072 [ 0.034, t = 2.42, p \ .05; females = 0.085 \0.099, t = 0.93, p [ .05). In regards to sex, subsequent
analyses (not shown) reveal that females earn significantly
lower hourly wages than males. To examine this, we ran
models with both groups collapsed into one and included a
dummy variable for sex (female = 1). The results show
that controlling for all variables as in M3 of Table 3,
women earned about (e.141 - 1)*100 = 15.1 % lower
hourly wages than men. This pattern holds for each
immigrant group and African Americans. We ran the same
models on each group. The results showed that female
immigrants from Africa earned about (e.091 - 1)*100 =
9.5 % lower wages than their male counterparts. For
Caribbean immigrants, women earned about (e.116 - 1)*100 =
14 Use of a logged dependent variable allows interpretation of
coefficients as percentage changes in the dependent variable, once the
appropriate calculation has been made: percent change in the
dependent variable for a unit change in the independent vari-
able = (eB - 1)*100.15 Corra and Kimuna’s recent analysis (2009) similarly finds subtle
but important earnings differences among female African Americans,
African, and Caribbean immigrants. After distinguishing Caribbean
immigrants into three categories of linguistic heritage—English,
French, and Spanish—Corra and Kimuna (2009) report noticeably
higher average earnings for African, English, and French Caribbean
immigrant women than that for their African American counterparts.
16 One interpretation of this finding is that the earnings advantage of
African immigrants, relative to native-born blacks, to a sizeable
degree, is accounted for by favorable earnings-related endowments
possessed by African immigrants (Dodoo 1997). By contrast, the fact
that no such attenuation is found for Caribbean immigrants (both
males and females) suggests that the advantage in earnings-related
attributes like education and occupation that Caribbean immigrants
exhibit over African Americans (see Table 2 above) does not fully
account for the earnings difference between these two groups. As
noted above, there is some evidence that black African immigrants
face substantial discrimination in the US labor market (Scroggins
1989; Takougang 1995; Apraku 1996; Kposowa 2002). It may very
well be the case that this is especially true for African immigrant
males.
Race Soc Probl (2014) 6:103–119 113
123
Page 12
12.3 % lower wages than immigrant men. For African Ameri-
cans, women earned about (e.176 - 1)*100 = 19.2 % lower
wages than men.
In sum, we found that immigrant men and women
earned more per hour than their African American coun-
terparts. Specifically, the results in Table 3 show that
immigrant blacks from Africa and the Caribbean were
favored in the US labor market over African Americans
controlling for a host of variables related to earnings such
as education and work experience. The results also suggest
that the advantages held by immigrants were stronger for
women than for men (although both were significantly
greater than zero). Immigrant men earned about 5 % more
than native-born black men, while immigrant women
earned about 9 % more per hour than native-born black
women. We also noted a curvilinear effect of work expe-
rience in both male and female immigrant groups. The next
section examines change over time.
Change Over Time
Table 4 shows parameter estimates and fit statistics from
two different models, one for males and one for females. In
order to test whether the gap in earnings by various groups
has been growing larger (or narrowing) over time, it is
necessary to include interactions between the independent
variables and some function of time. The most general
form of this interaction would treat year as a series of
Table 4 Trend analysis of
logged hourly earnings by sex
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01;
*** p \ .001
Male Female
Main effect Trend Main effect Trend
Intercept 2.236*** 2.186***
Trend 0.007 -0.045*
Demographics
African -0.016 -0.008 0.064***
Caribbean 0.029 0.062** 0.024*
Immigrated \16 -0.041 -0.057* 0.037*
Married 0.148*** 0.003 0.013***
Region
North 0.010 0.016*** 0.035*** 0.009*
Midwest 0.077*** -0.061*** -0.001 -0.032***
South -0.177*** 0.024*** -0.176***
Human capital
Citizenship 0.038*** 0.016*
English ability
No English -0.031 -0.145***
Poor English -0.037** -0.066***
Good English -0.052*** -0.034***
Occupation
Management -0.022*** 0.078*** 0.084*** 0.030***
Service -0.216*** 0.060*** -0.185*** 0.068***
Education
Less than HS -0.122*** -0.005* -0.084*** -0.025***
Some college 0.070*** 0.025*** 0.061*** 0.043***
US degree 0.337*** 0.033*** 0.455*** 0.018***
Foreign degree 0.248*** 0.278*** 0.051**
Work experience
US experience 0.031*** -0.006*** 0.023***
US exp. sq (*10) -0.005*** 0.001*** -0.004***
For. experience 0.011*** -0.003* 0.007**
For. exp. sq (*10) -0.002*** 0.001* -0.001*
Adjusted R2 0.189 0.154
df 50 50
N 469,446 524,400
114 Race Soc Probl (2014) 6:103–119
123
Page 13
dummy variables and interact all the independent variables
with each year dummy. Since this approach would involve
estimating a large number of parameters, it would have
relatively low power. Thus, it is desirable to use some
simple function of time in the interaction term. The most
obvious possibility is a linear trend term increasing from 0
in 1980 to 2 in 2000 (for similar computations, see Carter
et al. 2009; Borch and Corra 2010). Interactions involving
a trend term imply a steady divergence or convergence of
groups over the whole period. In reality, change might take
more complex forms—for example, the difference between
groups might grow for a period of time, but then remain
constant. However, given our data constraints, the linear
trend model provides a useful and parsimonious starting
point.
Estimates from two models including interactions with a
linear trend term are shown in Table 4. The main effects
are shown in the first columns, while the interactions are
shown in the second columns.17 The estimates in the first
and second columns can be combined to give estimates of
the effects of independent variables at any given time
point. If the main effect is called b0 and the interaction is
called b1, the estimated effect of a variable is given by
b0 ? b1*TREND.
Thus, for males, the results indicate that the earnings
gap between immigrants and native-born blacks has
remained constant over time—interaction/trend estimates
are not significant. For females, the results are more
complicated. There is a negative and significant coefficient
for the trend term (B = -.045, p \ .05). This means that
overall the earnings of females in the sample have been
decreasing over time. The positive and significant inter-
action between the dummy variables for African and
Caribbean indicate that the reduction in earnings is less
steep in these groups than it is in African Americans. This
indicates an increase in the earnings gap between immi-
grants and native-born blacks.
To illustrate, in 1980, black women from Africa earned
about the same as African American women (B = -.008,
p [ .05); in 1990, however, the gap grew to about
(e-.008?(-.064*1) - 1)*100 = 5.8 % favoring African women;
and by 2000, it was about (e-.008?(-.064*2) - 1)*100 =
12.7 % more than native-born blacks. These results support
the idea that the earnings of immigrants have ‘‘moved away’’
from the earnings of African Americans, but only as it pertains
to females.
The results also show that, across groups, the earnings of
those in the Northern region are growing relative to those
in the Western region, while the earnings of those in the
Midwestern region are shrinking compared with those in
the West. The earnings of those in Management and Ser-
vice jobs are growing faster than the earnings of those in
labor-type jobs. Also, the results for education show that
more education leads to higher earnings and that this trend
is increasing over time. However, for males, the over time
effects of work experience (whether foreign or in the US)
are complex. The inverted U form of experience and
experience-squared seen in Table 3 is balanced by an
upright U form over time (see Table 4). This means that
the effect of years of work experience is ‘‘flattening out’’
over time.
Taken together, the findings reported in Table 4 give
mixed support for the idea that the earnings of immigrants
have ‘‘moved away’’ from the earnings of African Ameri-
cans. In fact, the hypothesized divergence between the
earnings of the two immigrant groups and native-born blacks
was only present among the female groups. No such diver-
gence occurred among the male groups. The models showed
fairly parallel results in other areas, however, with most
groups moving in tandem with their statistical counterparts.
To address the hypothesis that the earnings gap between
men and women has increased over time, we again col-
lapsed the two gender groups into one and reran the models
from Table 4 with sex (female = 1) and a FEMALE*-
TIME interaction term. The results show that the earnings
of females are significantly lower than that of males
(B = -.227, p \ .001), but that this gap is growing
smaller, not larger, over time (B = .048, p \ .001). This
pattern is repeated in the sample of African (B = .054,
p \ .001) and Caribbean (B = .026, p \ .001) immigrants.
However, the gap is growing larger between African
American males and females (B = -.043, p \ .001).
Discussion and Conclusion
This paper has examined the hourly earnings of three
groups of blacks in the United States (African Americans,
African, and Caribbean immigrants) over the period
1980–2000, with special focus on nativity and sex. Spe-
cifically, we argued that there are three potential barriers
that immigrants face when trying to find success in the US
labor market. The first is their immigrant status (i.e.,
native-born vs. immigrant) (Dodoo 1997; Corra and Kim-
una 2009). The second is race (i.e., blacks vs. whites)
(Borch and Corra 2010); we do not address this issue in this
paper. The third is sex/gender (i.e., male vs. female). These
are important sociological issues that are relevant to the
significance of race, gender, and nativity (native vs.
17 Interaction/trend estimates that are not significant are not reported
in Table 4. For males, this includes estimates for African, Caribbean,
Immigrated under 16, married, citizenship, the English language
dummies (none, poor, and good) and foreign degree; for females, it
includes South, citizenship, the English language dummies, US
experience and its squared term, and foreign experience and its
squared term.
Race Soc Probl (2014) 6:103–119 115
123
Page 14
foreign-born) for status attainment in contemporary
America. In this conclusion, we revisit some of the ques-
tions raised in the introductory and background sections
that are related to these issues and use our key findings to
address them.
Beginning with nativity (immigrant vs. native-born), we
noted that today, African immigrants constitute a growing
and significant component of the black foreign and native-
born populations. And that a key question that this growing
significance suggests is how these immigrants are adapting
into the social and economic fabric of their new country.
We further noted that for African immigrants, the answer
to this question is compounded by the fact that these
immigrants are both immigrants and for many, black—two
socially significant variables shown to influence immigrant
adaptation in the United States. For the former of these
two, our findings indicate a sizeable earnings advantage for
the immigrant groups (both males and females). This
finding is inconsistent with some previous studies (e.g.,
Dodoo 1997), but consistent with some theoretical expla-
nations (see the discussion immediately below).
Recalling from the background section, this paper was
framed to examine how well three theoretical arguments
account for the earnings of persons of African origins in the
United States (African Americans, African, and Caribbean
immigrants): Selectivity, cultural, and demand-side. In this
respect, the findings are mixed. The evidence suggests
some measure of selectivity among the immigrant groups,
but the effects of such selectivity are not uniform (see
Table 2 above). By contrast, the findings are suggestive of
cultural explanations as being particularly weak. Insofar as
the findings pertain to demand-side arguments, some of the
observed earnings differentials may be suggestive of such
factors being operative (see below). By ‘‘suggestive,’’ here
we mean ‘‘consistent with’’—the Census data lack mea-
sures that can be used to directly test differential treatment
in the labor force.
A key finding of the current study, for example, is that
gender, net of other variables such as education and nativ-
ity, is a powerful predictor of earnings. That is to say, results
of our analyses clearly indicate that men earned more than
women, both overall and within comparison groups. A
rather interesting finding, in this respect, is that the largest
discrepancy between men and women was found to be
present among native-born blacks: a 15.1 % overall earn-
ings advantage for men, as compared with 9.5, 12.3, and
19.2 % for African, Caribbean, and native-born black men,
respectively (see the discussion of Table 3 above).
As noted above, selectivity theory suggests that if men’s
migration is more frequently motivated by economic
incentives than women’s, then immigrant men should be
the more positively selected group. It can be argued that the
finding that gender, net of other variables such as education
and nativity, is a powerful predictor of earnings is attrib-
utable to selectivity. Yet, the finding that gender is a strong
predictor of earnings was also evident among the native-
born. Rather than selectivity, we suspect that this finding is
suggestive of the continuing significance of gender for
socioeconomic attainment in the United States.
In terms of over time trends, results of our analysis
indicated that, overall, the earnings of females in the
sample have been decreasing over time. This decrease is
shown to be less steep among African and Caribbean
immigrants than among African Americans, suggesting an
increase in the earnings gap between immigrants and
native-born blacks. For example, as indicated above, in
1980, black women from Africa earned about the same as
African American women; in 1990, the gap grew to about
5.8 % favoring African women; and by 2000, it was about
12.7 % more than native-born blacks. Similar results are
found for the Caribbean–African American comparison
and, among native-born black men and women, the gap is
shown to have grown much larger. In short, native-born
women are shown to be doing relatively worst over time,
compared with both immigrant black women and African
American men.
A possible explanation of these findings is that both
immigrant status and gender are at play here. It may be
recalled that findings of the current study indicate that
immigration status has a positive effect on earnings and
gender a negative effect. Both of these are consistent with
previous studies (e.g., Borch and Corra 2010; Model 2008).
The two findings are also consistent with intersectionality
explanations. It may be recalled that intersectionality the-
ory proposes that categorical variables like race, gender,
and social class interact on multiple and often simultaneous
levels. These interactions are said to produce systems of
inequality that reflect ‘‘intersections’’ of these variables
(Browne and Misra 2003; Collins 2000a, b; Cho et al.
2013; Crenshaw 1991; McCall 2001, 2005a, b). Hence, it is
not inconceivable that immigrant status, gender, and geo-
graphic/national origin (African/Caribbean/native-born)
similarly combine in unique ways that differentially influ-
ence attainment among the groups studied here. In other
words, the findings here are consistent with the proposition
that African American women are doubly disadvantaged
such that sex and nativity combine to place them at the
bottom of the ranking of these groups.
While the Census data are not amenable to directly testing
the proposition that immigrants with cultural attributes that
markedly differ from those found in Western cultures find it
difficult to adjust in Euro-American culture, results of this
study are incongruent with that hypothesis. Had cultural
factors been operative as such, African immigrants would
have generally exhibited earnings that are significantly lower
than their African American counterparts. Instead, findings
116 Race Soc Probl (2014) 6:103–119
123
Page 15
of this paper suggest the reverse. Besides, the colonial and
neo-colonial influences of Western cultures, along with the
global dominance of Western culture today, make this
hypothesis less likely. To further adjudicate this question,
future research might focus on the attainment of recent
African immigrants as compared with that of earlier ones
(whether or not assimilation differences among African
immigrants differentially influence their status attainment).
Likewise, although the Census data do not have measures
that can be used to directly test demand-side hypotheses,
factors pointing to differential treatment in the US labor
market cannot be discounted. As noted above, evidence exist
that like their native-born counterparts, black African
immigrants face substantial discrimination in the US labor
market (Apraku 1996; Scroggins 1989; Takougang 1995).
While such discrimination cannot be confirmed or rejected
by our findings, results of this paper are consistent with a
differential treatment explanation. This is particularly
evidenced by our finding that native-born black college
graduates earn significantly more than their immigrant
counterparts. Similarly, our finding that all of our three
female groups (immigrant or native) earned less than their
male counterparts is consistent with a differential treatment
explanation. Only a more pointed research to the issue of
differential treatment, along with suitable data, would shed
light on these and related questions.
It follows that as with any scholarly work, this study has
its own limitations. A notable limitation is methodological
in nature—our use of a linear trend model to estimate
change over time. As indicated above, in order to test
whether the gap in earnings by various groups has been
growing larger (or narrowing) over time, it is necessary to
include interactions between the independent variables and
some function of time. The most general form of this
interaction would treat year as a series of dummy variables
and interact all the independent variables with each year
dummy. Yet, as we indicated above, this approach would
involve estimating a large number of parameters and thus
would have relatively low power.
Our solution was a linear trend term increasing from 0 in
1980 to 2 in 2000. This simpler model, however, implies a
steady divergence or convergence of groups over the whole
period. As we also noted above, in reality, change might
take more complex forms—for example, the difference
between groups might grow for a period of time, but then
remain constant. Despite this limitation, however, we
strongly believe that the linear trend model provides a
useful and parsimonious starting point to be built upon by
future research.
Furthermore, it may be recalled that this paper was
framed to examine how well three theoretical arguments
account for the earnings of persons of African origins in the
United States (African Americans, African, and Caribbean
immigrants): Selectivity, cultural, and demand-side. Yet, it
is important to note again that Census data are more or less
amenable to directly testing some of the hypotheses drawn
from these theoretical perspectives. While much of our
findings are consistent with demand-side arguments, for
example, Census data are not particularly well suited to
directly test hypotheses drawn from those arguments (and
the same could be said about cultural hypotheses). In this
respect, some of our findings can only be described as
suggestive and tentative.
Finally, there are a number of similarities and differences
between this study (both in terms of focus and findings) and
recent studies of similar orientation that are worth noting.
As with Dodoo (1997) and Corra and Kimuna (2009), the
primary goal of the current article was to examine earnings
differences among black persons of African origins in the
United States (native-born blacks and their African and
Caribbean immigrant counterparts). Notably, all three
studies converge on the finding that black African immi-
grants are not advantaged by their enhanced education (as
noted above, this finding is consistent with demand-side
arguments of differential treatment in the US labor market).
Unlike Dodoo (1997) and Corra and Kimuna (2009),
however, the current study included parallel analyses for
men and women, thus broadening the scope of those two
studies. Dodoo’s (1997) study focused exclusively on men,
while Corra and Kimuna’s work (2009) was concerned with
women. As noted above, recent migration data indicate that
women constitute more than 50 % of international migra-
tion to the developed world, and in many cases, outnumber
male migrants (Djamba and Bean 1999; Jasso 2007a, b).
Nevertheless, the status of female African immigrants in the
United States remains relatively understudied. This is so
because previous studies tended to focus on the experience
of men. By incorporating women into the analysis, this
study adds a necessary dimension to a fuller understanding
of the native-born–immigrant comparison: the relative
place of black immigrant women.
References
Apraku, K. (1991). African emigres in the United States: A missing
link to Africa’s social and economic development. New York:
Praeger.
Apraku, K. (1996). Outside looking in: An African perspective on
American Pluralistic Society. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Beck, E. M., Horan, P. M., & Tolbert, C. (1980). Industrial
segmentation and labor market discrimination. Social Problems,
28(2), 113–130.
Borch, C., & Corra, M. (2010). Differences in earnings among black
and non-black African immigrants in the United States,
1980–2000: A cross-sectional and temporal analysis. Sociolog-
ical Perspectives, 53(4), 573–592.
Race Soc Probl (2014) 6:103–119 117
123
Page 16
Borjas, G. (1985a). Assimilation, changes in cohort quality, and the
earnings of immigrants. Journal of Labor Economics, 3,
463–489.
Borjas, G. (1985b). Self selection and the earnings of immigrants.
American Economic Review, 77, 531–553.
Borjas, G. (1987). Self selection and the earnings of immigrants.
American Economic Review, 77, 531–553.
Borjas, G., & Bronars, S. (1991). Immigration and the family. Journal
of Labour Economics, 9(2), 123–148.
Browne, I., & Misra, J. (2003). The intersection of gender and race in
the labor market. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 487–513.
Budig, M. J., & England, P. (2001). The wage penalty for
motherhood. American Sociological Review, 66(2), 204–225.
Butcher, K. (1994). Black immigrants in the United States: A
comparison with native blacks and other immigrants. Industrial
and Labor Relations Review, 47, 265–284.
Carter, S. J., Corra, M., & Carter S. (2009). The Interaction of race
and gender: Changing gender-role attitudes, 1974–2006. Social
Science Quarterly, 90(1), 196–211.
Chiswick, B. (1978). The effects of americanization on the earnings of
foreign born men. Journal of Political Economy, 86(5), 897–921.
Chiswick, B. (1979). The economic progress of immigrants: Some
apparently universal patterns. In W. Fellner (Ed.), Contemporary
economic problems (pp. 357–399). Washington, DC: The
American Enterprise Institute.
Cho, S., Crenshaw, K., & McCall, L. (2013). Toward a field of
intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs,
38(4), 785–810.
Cohen, P. N., & Huffman, M. L. (2003). Occupational segregation
and the devaluation of women’s work across U.S. labor markets.
Social Forces, 81(3), 881–908.
Collins, P. H. (2000a). Gender, black feminism, and black political
economy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 568, 41–53.
Collins, P. H. (2000b). Black feminist thought (2nd ed.). New York:
Routledge.
Corra, M., & Kimuna, S. (2009). Double jeopardy? Female African
and Caribbean immigrants in the United States. Journal of
Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35(6), 1015–1035.
Coverman, S. (1986). Occupational segmentation and sex differences
in earnings. In R. Robinson (Ed.), Research in social stratification
and mobility (Vol. 5, pp. 139–172). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity
politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law
Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
Djamba, Y. K. (1999). African immigrants to the United States: A
socio-demographic profile in comparison to native blacks.
Journal of Asian and African Studies, 34(2), 210–215.
Djamba, Y., & Bean, F. (1999). Black and white African women in
America: Demographic profile and socio-economic assimilation.
African Population Studies, 14(1), 25–33.
Dodoo, F. N.-A. (1991a). Earnings differences among blacks in
America. Social Science Research, 20, 93–108.
Dodoo, F. N.-A. (1991b). Immigrant and native black workers’ labor
force participation in the United States. National Journal of
Sociology, 5, 1–17.
Dodoo, F. N.-A. (1991c). Blacks and earnings in New York State.
Sociological Spectrum, 11, 203–212.
Dodoo, F. N.-A. (1991d). Minority immigrants in the United States:
Earnings attributes and economic success. Canadian Studies in
Population, 18, 42–55.
Dodoo, F. N.-A. (1997). Assimilation differences among Africans in
America. Social Forces, 76, 527–546.
Dodoo, F. N.-A., & Takyi, B. K. (2002). Africans in the diaspora:
Black–white earnings differences among America’s Africans.
Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25(6), 913–941.
Du Bois, W. E. B. (1962). Letter communication about the Proposed
Encyclopedia Africana Project Accra, Ghana.
Dugger, K. (1988). Social location and gender-role attitudes: A
comparison of Black and White women. Gender & Society, 2,
425–448.
Foner, N. (1985). Race and color: Jamaican migrants in London and
New York City. International Migration Review, 19, 708–727.
Glazer, N., & Moynihan, D. (1963). Beyond the melting pot.
Cambridge, MA: M.I.T Press and Harvard University Press.
Greeley, A. (1976). Ethnicity, denomination, and inequality . Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Harrison, L. (1992). Who prospers?. New York: Basic Books.
Hawk, B. (1992). Africa’s media image. New York: Praeger.
Hodge, R. (1973). Toward a theory of racial differences in
employment. Social Forces, 52, 16–31.
Hodson, R., & Kaufman, R. (1982). Economic dualism: A critical
review. American Sociological Review, 47(6), 727–739.
Hossfeld, K. (1994). Hiring immigrant women: Silicon valley’s
simple formula. In M. Zinn & B. Dill (Eds.), Women of color in
U.S. Society,. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Jasso, G. (2007a). Dimensions of immigration and gender. Paper
presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological
Association, New York.
Jasso, G. (2007b). Immigration and American inequality. Paper
presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological
Association, New York.
Kalmijn, M. (1996). The socioeconomic assimilation of Caribbean
American Blacks. Social Forces, 74, 911–930.
Kane, E. W. (1992). Race, gender, and attitudes toward gender
stratification. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 311–320.
Kasinitz, P. (1992). Caribbean New York: Black immigrants and the
politics of race. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Kaufman, R. L. (2002). Assessing alternative perspectives on race and
sex employment segregation. American Sociological Review,
67(4), 547–572.
Kent, M. M. (2007). Immigration and America’s Black population.
Population Bulletin, 62(4), 1–16.
Korenman, S., & Neumark, D. (1991). Does marriage really make
men more productive? Journal of Human Resources, 26(2),
282–307.
Kposowa, A. J. (2002). Human capital and the performance of
African immigrants in the U.S. labor market. The Western
Journal of Black Studies, 26, 175–183.
Lewis, G. (1983). Main currents in Caribbean thought: The historical
evolution of Caribbean Society in its ideological aspects,
1492–1900. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lieberson, S. (1980). A piece of the pie. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Logan, J. R., & Deane, G. (2003). Black diversity in metropolitan
areas. New York: Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative
Urban and regional Research, University of Albany.
Lopez, N. (2003). Hopeful girls, troubled boys: Race and gender
disparity in urban education. New York: Routledge.
McCabe, K. (2011). African immigrants in the United States.
Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. http://www.migra
tioninformation.org/USfocus/display.cfm?ID=847. Accessed 6
Jan 2014.
McCall, L. (2001). Complex inequality: Gender, class, and race in the
new economy. New York: Routledge.
McCall, L. (2005a). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs:
Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(3), 1771–1800.
McCall, L. (2005b). Gender, race, and the restructuring of work:
Organizational and institutional perspectives. In P. Tolbert, R.
Batt, S. Ackroyd, & P. Thompson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook
of work and organization (pp. 74–94). New York: Oxford
University Press.
118 Race Soc Probl (2014) 6:103–119
123
Page 17
Mincer, J. (1974). Schooling, experience, and earnings. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Mishel, L., Bernstein, J., & Allegretto, S. (2007). The state of working
America, 2006. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Model, S. (1991). Caribbean immigrants: A black success story?
International Migration Review, 25, 248–276.
Model, S. (1995). West Indian prosperity: Fact or fiction? Social
Problems, 42, 535–553.
Model, S. (1997). An occupational tale of two cities: Minorities in
London and New York. Demography, 34, 539–550.
Model, S. (2008). West Indian immigrants: A black success story?.
New York: Russell Sage.
Model, S., & Ladipo, D. (1996). Context and opportunity: Minorities
in London and New York. Social Forces, 75, 485–510.
Mpanya, M. (1995). Stereotypes of hunger in U.S. hunger appeals. In
D. Shields (Ed.), The color of hunger (pp. 25–33). New York:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Oaxaca, R. (1973). Male–female wage differentials in urban labor
markets. International Economic Review, 14(3), 693–709.
Portes, A., & Bach, R. (1985). Latin journey: Cuban and Mexican
immigrants in the United States. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Portes, A., & Borocz, J. (1989). Contemporary immigration: Theo-
retical perspectives on its determinants and modes of incorpo-
ration. International Migration Review, 23(3), 606–630.
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the
immigrant second generation. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2006). Immigrant America: A portrait.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Reid, J. (1986). Immigration and the future of the U.S. black
population. Population Today, 14, 6–8.
Reskin, B. F. (1988). Bringing the men back in: Sex differentiation
and the devaluation of women’s work. Gender & Society, 2(1),
58–81.
Ritzer, G. (2007). Contemporary sociological theory and its classical
roots: The basics. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Roos, P. A. (1990). Review of revolving doors: Sex segregation and
women’s careers, by Jerry Jacobs. American Journal of Sociol-
ogy, 95, 1315–1316.
Roy, A. (1951). Some thoughts on the distribution of earnings. Oxford
Economic Papers, 3, 135–146.
Scroggins, D. (1989). Atlanta: A Magnet for Emigres, but Racial
Barriers a Surprise. Atlanta Journal and Constitution, August 20,
B1.
Sowell, T. (1978). Three black histories. In T. Sowell & L. D. Collins
(Eds.), Essays and data on American ethnic groups (pp. 7–64).
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Sowell, T. (1981). Ethnic America: A history. New York: Basic
Books.
Sowell, T. (1994). Race and culture: A world view. New York: Basic
Books.
Snyder, D. (2002). Signs of a boom in African influx: Surge’s impact
seen throughout country. The Washington Post.
Takougang, J. (1995). Black immigrants to the United States. The
Western Journal of Black Studies, 19, 50–57.
Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (1993). Gender and racial inequality at work.
Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
United States Immigration and Naturalization Service. (1998).
Statistical yearbook of the U.S. immigration and naturalization
service. Washington, DC: Department of Justice.
Waters, M. (1994a). Differing perspectives of racism: West Indians,
African Americans and whites in the workplace. Paper presented
at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Associa-
tion, Los Angeles, California.
Waters, M. (1994b). Ethnic and racial identities of second-generation
black immigrants in New York City. International Migration
Review, 28, 795–820.
Williams, C. L. (1992). The hidden escalator: Hidden advantages for
men in the ‘female’ professions. Social Problems, 39(3),
253–267.
Zaffiro, J. (1992). Review of the Western media and the stereotyping
of Africa. Africa Today, 39, 81–82.
Zeleza, P. T. (2002). Contemporary African migration in a global
context. African Issues, 30(1), 9–14.
Zinn, B. M., & Dill, T. (1996). Theorizing difference from multiracial
feminism. Feminist Studies, 22(2), 321–331.
Race Soc Probl (2014) 6:103–119 119
123
