Marco Contextual

3.2.1. Economic theories of extension

One of the most important predictors of household extension, and a main factor explaining differences across groups, is socioeconomic status. As many researchers have shown, family extension tends to be negatively associated with such factors as household/personal income and educational attainment (Angel and Tienda 1982, Blank and Torrecilha 1998, Glick, Bean, and Van Hook 1997, Van Hook and Glick 2007). Economic theories of extension center on the idea that while individuals gen- erally have a preference for independent living, the economies of scale and resulting reduction of living expenses that accrue to shared goods, such as housing, provides a powerful incentive for doubling up for low income groups (Browning, Chiappori, and Lewbel 2013, Deaton and Christina Paxson 1998, Deaton and Muellbauer 1980, Kakwani and Son 2005).

Thus, one reason that immigrants are more likely to live in extended family households is that many national origin groups average lower wages and education levels than the native born. Coupled with limited access to public assistance, extended living arrangements are an important way that immigrant households mitigate the consequences of economic insecurity and poverty (Glick and Van Hook 2002, Leach

2010). Moreover, because individuals may trade services within households, adults with limited labor market opportunities may form extended households in an attempt to exchange shelter and basic living costs for services such as the care of children and the elderly (Angel and Tienda 1982, Blank and Torrecilha 1998).

3.2.2. Life cycle theories of extension

Another theoretical perspective on household extension focuses on the link between living arrangements and the life-course. According to this perspective, the incentives for extension vary at different life stages; both biological age and specific events such as marriage, childbirth, and old age disability shape the incentives and opportunities for household extension (Blank and Torrecilha 1998, Moen and Wethington 1992).

When applied to immigrant-native differences in household formation, the argu- ment is two-fold. First, immigrants are disproportionately young and average higher fertility than the native born. As such, they are more likely to form extended house- holds because these life-cycle characteristics favor extension. Second, immigration is itself an important life-cycle event that can shape extension in and of itself. The period immediately following migration is often characterized by a high degree of uncertainty and insecurity, while new entrants into the society search for jobs and housing and become acclimated to their new environments. Thus, in the early stage of migration, extended household formation may emanate not only from low income, but also from the need to pool resources to recover from the insecurity and disrupted social bonds inherent in the migration experience. Later, as migrants gain experience and greater knowledge in United States, they may be better able to convert their economic resources into a nuclear household structure.

Mexican immigrants show that recent migrants are more likely to live in extended households than those who have resided in the United States for longer periods of time (Glick, Bean, and Van Hook 1997, Van Hook and Glick 2007). Similarly, in analyses with cross-sectional data, being married is often negatively associated with a high likelihood of living in extended households (Blank and Torrecilha 1998). A strong positive correlation is also found between the presence of children under six years of age and extension (Blank and Torrecilha 1998). Further empirical evidence shows that the likelihood of extension varies by age among immigrants, and age com- position helps explain much of the difference in extension between Mexican and Asian immigrants (Glick and Van Hook 2002).

3.2.3. Cultural theories of extension

While economic and life-cycle characteristics explain a large share of the higher propensity for household extension among immigrants, gaps with the native popula- tion remain even after these factors are accounted for. Cultural theories of extension rely on two main arguments to explain these remaining differences: taste forma- tion (that the preference for nuclear living arrangements is lower in many developing regions) and portability of culture (that migrant household patterns in the United States represent a continuation of cultural practices from countries of origin). Given the absence of measures of culture and preferences, this framework is generally based on residual analysis, whereby the cultural explanation is derived from variation unex- plained by socioeconomic and demographic variables (Angel and Tienda 1982, Blank and Torrecilha 1998, Van Hook and Glick 2007).

One obvious problem with attributing unexplained differences in household for- mation, that are often sizeable, to culture is that other omitted factors, often related

to data availability, also contribute to the disparities (Blank and Torrecilha 1998, Van Hook and Glick 2007). Using a direct approach to measuring culture, Van Hook and Glick (2007) compare household structure in migrant sending regions in Mexico to household structure among Mexican Americans in the United States. They find a much smaller contribution of culture to Mexican American living arrangements than previous studies using a residual approach. To the extent that culture can evolve over time, one should expect changes in immigrant preferences as duration of residence in the United States increases. This has led many researchers to examine the link between acculturation and household extension. Findings tend to be sensitive to the measure of acculturation used. Using English proficiency as a proxy for assimilation, Blank and Torrecilha (1998) find no statistically significant relationship between cul- ture and the likelihood of living in extended households (Blank and Torrecilha 1998). On the other hand, years since immigration are found to explain some variation in household composition, as the likelihood of extension tends to decrease as immigrants stay longer in the United States (Blank and Torrecilha 1998, Leach 2010, Van Hook and Glick 2007). Unfortunately, the interpretation of these results is complicated by the association of these variables with other socio-demographic and life-cycle charac- teristics, such as education, age of arrival to the United States, and so on.

3.2.4. New directions in research on extension among immigrants

Previous studies on household extension share some common shortcomings. First, they fail to consider the whole range of the immigrant experience. Most studies on extension have focused on Mexican and, to a lesser extent, Asian and other Latin American immigrants. Given the tremendous heterogeneity of immigrants from dif- ferent sending regions, particularly with respect to the human capital characteristics

associated with extension (Borjas 1987, 1994, Chiswick 1978, Elo et al. 2015, Feli- ciano 2005, Kritz and Gurak 2015, Lucas 2015), this is problematic. While a handful of studies compare multiple sending regions (see Glick, Bean, and Van Hook 1997), they tend to focus on earlier time periods. However, rapid social change abroad and the continued influx of newcomers to the United States continuously alter the composition of all immigrant groups, and necessitate reexamination of even familiar patterns. Second, most studies of immigrant living arrangements do not distinguish between the various types of extension. However, it should be emphasized that family extension encompasses three possible types of living arrangements: horizontal (with same-generation members), vertical (with multi-generation members), or mixed (hor- izontal and vertical) extension. This distinction has been shown to be important for Mexican immigrants (Van Hook and Glick 2007), and is in need of examination in a comparative perspective.

Finally, previous research often fails to account for the role of local context in structuring patterns of household extension. Because immigrant populations are more highly concentrated geographically than native-born groups, local housing mar- ket characteristics are likely to shape their living arrangements. The economic need to double up with family members is shaped by the income available to potential household members and also by the cost of housing that could be shared. Because low income is associated with family household extension, one would expect that high home values, ceteris paribus, would tend to increase the prevalence of family house- hold extension. Other local conditions that suggest more difficult transitions into homeownership could also shape extension patterns. Thus, the greater concentration of immigrants in more expensive housing markets, and those marked by lower rates of home ownership, could contribute to the immigrant-native gap in extension.

First, we use recent census data to examine patterns of household extension among immigrants from Mexico, rest of America, the West Indies, South East Asia, rest of Asia, Africa, Oceania, and Europe. We are concerned not only with differences across groups in the prevalence of extension, but also in how the socio-demographic corre- lates of extension may differ across groups. Second, we distinguish between vertical, horizontal, and mixed extended households to explore differences across regions of ori- gin, as well as how socio-demographic and life-cycle forces relate differently to these multiple forms of extension. And finally, we examine the role of the local context in shaping immigrant household extension, by region of origin and extension type, and assess the extent to which this dimension helps us to understand differences in patterns of household formation between the native born and the foreign born.